On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Björn Larsson
wrote:
> Leaves the options, >==, <== or >>=, <<=. But I don't like the
> last ones. One might also consider extending the spaceship
> operator to <==> for strict comparison.
>
Shift-left assign: >>=
Shift-right assign: <<=
So no on both of those.
Bu
Den 2015-10-02 kl. 18:50, skrev Sara Golemon:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Björn Larsson
wrote:
... or if someday in the future comparison operator
without type juggling is needed.
You just blew my mind. Trying to imagine where strict
greater-than-or-equal would be used, and more to the
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Björn Larsson
wrote:
> ... or if someday in the future comparison operator
> without type juggling is needed.
>
You just blew my mind. Trying to imagine where strict
greater-than-or-equal would be used, and more to the point: What you'd
make strict grater than loo
Le 22/09/2015 03:59, Bob Weinand a écrit :
Hey,
or straight ahead to the vote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short_closures#vote
Thanks,
Bob
Hi,
After discussing this with other people at AFUP, we would be (a large
majority of us) -1 on this RFC.
Basically, we feel that:
* This could lead t
Den 2015-09-26 kl. 09:18, skrev Pavel Kouřil:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Bob Weinand wrote:
Hey,
Thanks for all your feedback in the discussion thread!
So, before I start the vote, just two quick notes:
I've added two notes about the statement syntax and the single variable use.
Though
Hi,
On Sa, 2015-09-26 at 10:10 +0200, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Stanislav Malyshev
> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >> The biggest issues seem to be
> >> - ~> operator instead of ==>
> >> - missing type hints
> >> - auto imports
> >
> >
> Seems you are right it's not clear aft
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> since the RFC doesn't look like it will pass, I have a question about
>> RFC process - will you be able to "fix" the RFC and submit it for vote
>> again with targeting PHP 7.1?
>
> Yes, but see:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting
Hi!
> since the RFC doesn't look like it will pass, I have a question about
> RFC process - will you be able to "fix" the RFC and submit it for vote
> again with targeting PHP 7.1?
Yes, but see:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting#resurrecting_rejected_proposals
So, to make another try, the RFC need
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Bob Weinand wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Thanks for all your feedback in the discussion thread!
>
> So, before I start the vote, just two quick notes:
> I've added two notes about the statement syntax and the single variable use.
> Though a few people complained, I'm not swit
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Bishop Bettini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
>
>> So, before I start the vote, just two quick notes:
>> I've added two notes about the statement syntax and the single variable
>> use.
>> Though a few people complained, I'm no
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
> So, before I start the vote, just two quick notes:
> I've added two notes about the statement syntax and the single variable
> use.
> Though a few people complained, I'm not switching to the ==> operator, as
> I noticed many people expect
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:00 AM
> To: PHP internals
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures
>
> Hey,
>
> Thanks for all your feedback in the discussion thread!
"Anthony Ferrara" wrote in message
news:CAAyV7nHVNGG8yOyGhTE=pkaci4gdtgrdvcs4rdxb2flmny4...@mail.gmail.com...
Dmitry,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Anthony Ferrara
wrote:
Dmitry,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Dmitry Stogov wr
Den 2015-09-22 kl. 03:59, skrev Bob Weinand:
Hey,
Thanks for all your feedback in the discussion thread!
So, before I start the vote, just two quick notes:
I've added two notes about the statement syntax and the single variable use.
Though a few people complained, I'm not switching to the ==> o
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Anthony Ferrara
wrote:
> Dmitry,
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Anthony Ferrara
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Dmitry,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> >> > On Tue,
Dmitry,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Anthony Ferrara
> wrote:
>>
>> Dmitry,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Bob Weinand
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Am 22.09.2015
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
>
> Am 22.09.2015 um 20:05 schrieb Dmitry Stogov :
>
> The current PHP version emits two warning on similar constructs, and this
> is explainable because we explicitly "use" $y.
>
> $ sapi/cli/php -r 'function foo(){(function($x) use ($y){$y=3;
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Anthony Ferrara
wrote:
> Dmitry,
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Bob Weinand
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > Am 22.09.2015 um 17:36 schrieb Dmitry Stogov :
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Joe
> Am 22.09.2015 um 20:05 schrieb Dmitry Stogov :
>
> The current PHP version emits two warning on similar constructs, and this
> is explainable because we explicitly "use" $y.
>
> $ sapi/cli/php -r 'function foo(){(function($x) use ($y){$y=3; return
> $y+$x;})(5);return $y;} var_dump(foo());'
>
Dmitry,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
>
>>
>> > Am 22.09.2015 um 17:36 schrieb Dmitry Stogov :
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Joe Watkins
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'd really like to understand what you're tryi
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
>
> > Am 22.09.2015 um 17:36 schrieb Dmitry Stogov :
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Joe Watkins
> wrote:
> >
> >> I'd really like to understand what you're trying to say there Dmitry,
> but
> >> I don't get it.
> >>
> >> What is your
> Am 22.09.2015 um 17:36 schrieb Dmitry Stogov :
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
>
>> I'd really like to understand what you're trying to say there Dmitry, but
>> I don't get it.
>>
>> What is your example function trying to show ?
>>
>> As it mentions in the RFC, vars
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> I'd really like to understand what you're trying to say there Dmitry, but
> I don't get it.
>
> What is your example function trying to show ?
>
> As it mentions in the RFC, vars in short closure are by-value, so I can't
> see what side effect
I'd really like to understand what you're trying to say there Dmitry, but I
don't get it.
What is your example function trying to show ?
As it mentions in the RFC, vars in short closure are by-value, so I can't
see what side effects you might be thinking of ?
Cheers
Joe
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at
Hi,
The introduction claims:
"he current implementation of anonymous functions in PHP is quite verbose
compared to other languages. That makes using anonymous functions be more
difficult than it could be, as there is both more to type, and more
importantly the current implementation makes it hard
I'm against the magic - "automatically use () all of the (compiled)
variables".
I'm also against compound short closures with curly brackets.
in my opinion they opens too many ambiguous questions.
function foo() {
(($x) ~> {$y = 3; return $y + $x;})(5);
return $y;
}
also think about nested cl
Hey,
Thanks for all your feedback in the discussion thread!
So, before I start the vote, just two quick notes:
I've added two notes about the statement syntax and the single variable use.
Though a few people complained, I'm not switching to the ==> operator, as I
noticed many people expected typ
27 matches
Mail list logo
