Hi Nikita, Dmitry,
I think it's a mistake to throw a TypeException on invalid argument
count as in this case it has nothing to do with a type.
Marc
Am 03.04.2015 um 20:48 schrieb Dmitry Stogov:
I don' t see any problems.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
I don' t see any problems.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Dan Ackroyd
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dmitry,
>>
>> Your approach is definitely a better one, and I have no objection to
>> it whatsoever.
>>
>> Sorry, I was too busy to look
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> Your approach is definitely a better one, and I have no objection to
> it whatsoever.
>
> Sorry, I was too busy to look deeply at each class but I can't see any
> problems.
>
> Nikita Popov wrote:
> > does that mean that the same
committed into master.
Dan, please update the RFC accordingly.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Dan Ackroyd
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dmitry,
>>
>> Your approach is definitely a better one, and I have no objection to
>> it whats
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> Your approach is definitely a better one, and I have no objection to
> it whatsoever.
>
Your patch was quite good. You just didn't know what this NULL return
required a hack in the PHP core :)
>
> Sorry, I was too busy to look
Hi Dmitry,
Your approach is definitely a better one, and I have no objection to
it whatsoever.
Sorry, I was too busy to look deeply at each class but I can't see any problems.
Nikita Popov wrote:
> does that mean that the same code using strict_types=1 mode will start
> throwing TypeException in
hi Nikita,
I don't care about this a lot. I reworked this patch just because it missed
few details, and then found and fixed mistake in ext/intl.
If you think TypeException is better (I think this makes sense), please
implement it on top and commit.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:07
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> The updated patch is at https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1205
>
> The main difference is in ext/intl.
> If you don't see any problems I can commit it.
>
> I didn't think about the classes you missed.
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>
I'm
Hi Dan,
any update? should I commit it?
or do you see any problems?
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> The updated patch is at https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1205
>
> The main difference is in ext/intl.
> If you don't see any problems I can
Hi Dan,
The updated patch is at https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1205
The main difference is in ext/intl.
If you don't see any problems I can commit it.
I didn't think about the classes you missed.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On 26 March 2015 at 2
Le 15/03/2015 17:09, Dan Ackroyd a écrit :
The 'Constructor behaviour of internal classes' RFC is now in voting.
Please note, it's the coding standard that is being voted on. If
anyone thinks I've implemented the changes in a way that is less
awesome then there is no reason the changes couldn't b
On 26 March 2015 at 20:19, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
> however the patch looks a bit surprising to me.
> We have special function to do this - zend_ctor_make_null() and some tricks
> in the VM.
> I made just a quick look over your patch but didn't find any references to
> them.
Surprisin
Hi Dan,
Your RFC is going to be accepted and I support the idea, however the patch
looks a bit surprising to me.
Actually, returning NULL from constructors wasn't simple :)
We have special function to do this - zend_ctor_make_null() and some tricks
in the VM.
I made just a quick look over your pa
> On 15 03 2015, at 17:09, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>
> Hi List,
>
> The 'Constructor behaviour of internal classes' RFC is now in voting.
> Please note, it's the coding standard that is being voted on. If
> anyone thinks I've implemented the changes in a way that is less
> awesome then there is no r
Hi List,
The 'Constructor behaviour of internal classes' RFC is now in voting.
Please note, it's the coding standard that is being voted on. If
anyone thinks I've implemented the changes in a way that is less
awesome then there is no reason the changes couldn't be improved.
Additionally, while wr
15 matches
Mail list logo
