Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Discussion] array_first() and array_last()

2025-04-22 Thread Levi Morrison
On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 9:30 AM Niels Dossche wrote: > > On 05/04/2025 17:51, Niels Dossche wrote: > > Hi internals > > > > I'm opening the discussion for the RFC "array_first() and array_last()". > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array_first_last > > > > Kind regards > > Niels > > > > > Hi > > I'll be

[PHP-DEV] Re: Sentential Entity 6.5 - Mine and Sparx lastest OS based in Ubuntu but an enliving machine (Something to also forward on)

2025-04-22 Thread Gc. Jerrimough Sebastian Xaa
For Recommending to people please read the manuals + guides:~ extract Sentential Entity 6.5 AMD64 Manuals as Tiesaa Binders extract Sentential Entity 6.5 AMD64 Guides as Tiesaa Binders extract Sentential Entity 6.5 ARM64 Manuals as Tiesaa Binders extract Sentential Entity 6.5 ARM64 Guides as Tiesa

Re: [PHP-DEV][Pre-RFC] Associated Types

2025-04-22 Thread Larry Garfield
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025, at 8:37 AM, Gina P. Banyard wrote: > Hello internals, > > The discussion about allowing never types as parameter types made me > think about what problem it is truly trying to solve, > which is using the same type as parameters and return values between > multiple methods of

[PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Vote] array_first() and array_last()

2025-04-22 Thread Niels Dossche
Hi internals I'm opening the vote for https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array_first_last Vote runs until 2025-05-06 23:59:59 CEST. Kind regards Niels

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC: Nested Classes (was: short and inner classes)

2025-04-22 Thread Rob Landers
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025, at 19:22, Levi Morrison wrote: > On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 7:46 AM Rob Landers wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025, at 21:45, Rob Landers wrote: > > > > Hello internals, > > > > I have significantly revamped the RFC (again). Key changes to the RFC: > > > > 1. More (realistic)

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC: Nested Classes (was: short and inner classes)

2025-04-22 Thread Levi Morrison
On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 7:46 AM Rob Landers wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025, at 21:45, Rob Landers wrote: > > Hello internals, > > I have significantly revamped the RFC (again). Key changes to the RFC: > > 1. More (realistic) examples, > 2. Since enums are basically specialized classes, they are a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Discussion] array_first() and array_last()

2025-04-22 Thread Niels Dossche
On 22/04/2025 18:51, Levi Morrison wrote: > I don't think it blocks this RFC in any way, and could be made > frameless after the vote--I just wanted to bring up that I think > they _should_ be frameless if they get accepted (and update > array_key_first/array_key_last to be frameless too). Hi Ind

[PHP-DEV][Pre-RFC] Associated Types

2025-04-22 Thread Gina P. Banyard
Hello internals, The discussion about allowing never types as parameter types made me think about what problem it is truly trying to solve, which is using the same type as parameters and return values between multiple methods of a common interface. This is normally solved with generics, but as

[PHP-DEV] Sentential Entity 6.5 - Mine and Sparx lastest OS based in Ubuntu but an enliving machine (Something to also forward on)

2025-04-22 Thread Gc. Jerrimough Sebastian Xaa
Okey on extract on the timing bells which is where you or your lawyer in the justice system runs the print command to get and install books etc, also in your push you can get these iso if you can store it, Sentential Entity is our new operating system, which is also an enliving enreal machine like

[PHP-DEV] New Extensions: All Completely United Tested + Developed:: Backdated PHP Versions to Current::: For mounting on github.com

2025-04-22 Thread Gc. Jerrimough Sebastian Xaa
To PHP.net, How are you? I have some extensions for you to mount on github.com you also need a sourceforge.net as it is the only way of supporting the Source-code: //sourceforge.net/p/php-net call in stien systems; the only place that supports the Source-code header call is sourceforge.net; they a

Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Never parameters (v2)

2025-04-22 Thread Marco Pivetta
Hey Daniel, I'm currently planning to vote "no" on this. The reason is that I see this RFC as very narrowly scoped on constructors / named constructors, and only in the case where a concrete class is referenced by a consumer. Constructors/named constructors are effectively not part of an object'