Hey Larry,
That's fine for the main vote, but the others are all either/or votes, not
> yes/no votes, so 2/3 majority doesn't mean anything. Do you mean those are
> 50/50 votes, or something else?
>
Thanks for your insight again, You are right, it was a silly bug in the
RFC. I've just fixed it s
On Wed, Jan 3, 2024, at 7:36 AM, Máté Kocsis wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> If there are no further complaints, I intend to start the votes (
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/resource_to_object_conversion) the day after
> tomorrow.
>
> Regards,
> Máté
"Each vote requires 2/3 majority in order to be accepted.
Hi Everyone,
If there are no further complaints, I intend to start the votes (
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/resource_to_object_conversion) the day after
tomorrow.
Regards,
Máté
Hi Larry,
Thanks for your input. I'm fine with adding a separate vote whether votes
are ok with the described approaches of converting resources to objects,
and then the 3 way vote can be eliminated.
Regards,
Máté
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023, at 10:18 AM, Máté Kocsis wrote:
> Hey Everyone,
>
> Sorry for the radio silence, I was busy with other tasks. However, I
> managed to improve the RFC in the recent days the following way:
> - most importantly, I changed the suggested approach of the conversion in
> case of pri
Hey Everyone,
Sorry for the radio silence, I was busy with other tasks. However, I
managed to improve the RFC in the recent days the following way:
- most importantly, I changed the suggested approach of the conversion in
case of primary stream resources: the is_resource() hack mentioned a few
tim
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:53 PM Deleu wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 2:08 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 at 07:36, Mike Schinkel wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 21, 2023 at 11:33 PM, >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > What is the point of a major release if we cannot even do such a BC
> > break
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 2:08 PM G. P. B. wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 at 07:36, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 2023 at 11:33 PM, >
> wrote:
> >
> > What is the point of a major release if we cannot even do such a BC
> break?
> > We don't even know when PHP 9.0 is going to happen yet.
> >
> More importantly, it is possible to write cross compatible code, even
> without changing anything about is_resource(), if we convert streams to
> opaque objects.
> It might be tedious and one might need to have redundant instanceof checks
> with is_resource() if one does not want to check for a f
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 at 07:36, Mike Schinkel wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2023 at 11:33 PM, > wrote:
>
> What is the point of a major release if we cannot even do such a BC break?
> We don't even know when PHP 9.0 is going to happen yet.
>
>
> I have been using Go for about four years now and it seems they
>
> On Nov 21, 2023 at 11:33 PM, mailto:george.bany...@gmail.com)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> What is the point of a major release if we cannot even do such a BC break?
> We don't even know when PHP 9.0 is going to happen yet.
>
>
I have been using Go for about four years n
On 12.11.2023 17:47, Máté Kocsis wrote:
Link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/resource_to_object_conversion
Is "Primary stream-related resources" section about file pointers? I'd
like it to be more clear. Maybe it should even list all functions that
will be impacted. I don't see an impact analysis f
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 16:13, Jakub Zelenka wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 4:48 PM Máté Kocsis
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Internals,
> >
> > Following my straw poll about the Process resource name, I would like to
> > present an RFC which clarifies the rough timeline and the BC promises of
> > the "res
Hi Derick, Jakub, Phiip
> Did you do an analyses as to how much either of these changes could break
> anything?
I updated the RFC with some impact analysis. The numbers support my
hypothesis that the conversion
of auxiliary stream resources would cause hardly any BC break - at least in
case of
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 17:14 Jakub Zelenka wrote:
> I will personally vote against this if there is no is_resource
> change as I think it's just too big BC break even for 9.0 - it will likely
> require massive update of many code bases.
As someone maintaining a large code-base going back
On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 4:48 PM Máté Kocsis wrote:
> Hi Internals,
>
> Following my straw poll about the Process resource name, I would like to
> present an RFC which clarifies the rough timeline and the BC promises of
> the "resource to object conversion" project.
>
> Link: https://wiki.php.net/
On 12 November 2023 16:47:37 GMT, "Máté Kocsis" wrote:
>Hi Internals,
>
>Following my straw poll about the Process resource name, I would like to
>present an RFC which clarifies the rough timeline and the BC promises of
>the "resource to object conversion" project.
>
>Link: https://wiki.php.net/rf
Hi Internals,
Following my straw poll about the Process resource name, I would like to
present an RFC which clarifies the rough timeline and the BC promises of
the "resource to object conversion" project.
Link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/resource_to_object_conversion
I'm looking forward to your fe
18 matches
Mail list logo