On Tue, Jan 7, 2025, at 1:21 PM, Niels Dossche wrote:
> On 07/01/2025 19:49, Ilija Tovilo wrote:
>> I wouldn't necessarily call this a workaround, but more of a missed
>> optimization (one branch for each static property write that is
>> unlikely to mispredict). If you wish, I can have a look at se
> Le 25 nov. 2024 à 17:52, Larry Garfield a écrit :
>
> Static property asymmetric visibility was left out of the original RFC,
> because it seemed like it would be hard and of little use. Turns out, Ilija
> found a way to make it easy. (Ilija is smart.) So here's a small RFC to add
> av
On 07/01/2025 19:49, Ilija Tovilo wrote:
> I wouldn't necessarily call this a workaround, but more of a missed
> optimization (one branch for each static property write that is
> unlikely to mispredict). If you wish, I can have a look at separating
> cache slots. This may lead to a slowdown due to
Hi Niels
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 7:37 PM Niels Dossche wrote:
>
> On 04/01/2025 00:14, Larry Garfield wrote:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static-aviz
> I'm not sure how I feel about this.
> The current implementation actually uses a workaround because otherwise it
> interferes with cache s
On 04/01/2025 00:14, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2024, at 10:52 AM, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> Static property asymmetric visibility was left out of the original RFC,
>> because it seemed like it would be hard and of little use. Turns out,
>> Ilija found a way to make it easy. (Ilija
On Mon, Nov 25, 2024, at 10:52 AM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> Static property asymmetric visibility was left out of the original RFC,
> because it seemed like it would be hard and of little use. Turns out,
> Ilija found a way to make it easy. (Ilija is smart.) So here's a
> small RFC to add aviz
On Tue, Nov 26, 2024, at 3:42 PM, Jonathan Vollebregt wrote:
> On 11/26/24 9:35 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> Thinking aloud, my expectation would be that it behaves similarly to how
>> final static methods would behave. Which appears to be a syntax error:
>> https://3v4l.org/j8mp0#v8.4.1
>>
>>
On 11/26/24 9:35 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
Thinking aloud, my expectation would be that it behaves similarly to how final
static methods would behave. Which appears to be a syntax error:
https://3v4l.org/j8mp0#v8.4.1
So, shouldn't properties do the same?
Without final you can still overrid
On Tue, Nov 26, 2024, at 3:57 AM, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 2024-11-25 17:52, schrieb Larry Garfield:
>> Static property asymmetric visibility was left out of the original RFC,
>> because it seemed like it would be hard and of little use. Turns out,
>> Ilija found a way to make it easy.
Hi
Am 2024-11-25 17:52, schrieb Larry Garfield:
Static property asymmetric visibility was left out of the original RFC,
because it seemed like it would be hard and of little use. Turns out,
Ilija found a way to make it easy. (Ilija is smart.) So here's a
small RFC to add aviz to static prop
Static property asymmetric visibility was left out of the original RFC, because
it seemed like it would be hard and of little use. Turns out, Ilija found a
way to make it easy. (Ilija is smart.) So here's a small RFC to add aviz to
static properties, because we can't think of a reason to NOT
11 matches
Mail list logo
