Hi
2011/5/16 Michael Morris :
> Question from the peanut gallery. Is the removal of magic_quotes and
> register_globals going to be done on this release, or is that still being
> put off for PHP 6?
>
So far all the legacy features have been removed from 5.4, except
magic_quotes which still is pe
Question from the peanut gallery. Is the removal of magic_quotes and
register_globals going to be done on this release, or is that still being
put off for PHP 6?
It seems Rasmus already patched some date tests here:
http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=311014
And my second patch (in previous letter) about bug 51819 is wrong,
will try to investigate it further.
More test fixes:
/trunk/ext/curl/tests/curl_setopt_basic001.phpt should probably be
Hi, list.
I've fixed some datetime tests in the trunk in answer to "Rasmus call
for devs" :)
There are two patches here.
First patch is quite trivial - it fixes some relative/absolute path
misconfiguration in phpt tests.
Second patch fixes some timezone errors in bug51819 - some timezones
like GB
On May 11, 2011, at 6:02 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> We once had a matrix showing test results per setup (OS, phpversion,
>> per configure switches) but it was someones pet project and the code
>> has long since been lost (he looked years ago). Maybe such a beast
>> would be useful.
>
>
Hi!
We once had a matrix showing test results per setup (OS, phpversion,
per configure switches) but it was someones pet project and the code
has long since been lost (he looked years ago). Maybe such a beast
would be useful.
We can do a table saying which tests fails where in the wiki right n
On May 11, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 05/11/2011 02:10 PM, Philip Olson wrote:
>
>> So, that's the concern there. But if the alpha is simply a trick to convince
>> people to test out a specific PHP 5.4 snapshot, and feel 5.4 is real, then
>> do it. ;)
>
> There are still qui
Hi:
On 11 May 2011, at 23:10, Philip Olson wrote:
> On May 11, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> The alpha release proposal by Andi contains the text:
>
> "I think we (almost) all agree that we need to start pushing PHP 5.4 with
> all the goodness that has been developed "to-date". Ad
On 05/11/2011 02:10 PM, Philip Olson wrote:
So, that's the concern there. But if the alpha is simply a trick to convince
people to test out a specific PHP 5.4 snapshot, and feel 5.4 is real, then do
it. ;)
There are still quite a few test failures in trunk. Some of them are
also in the 5_3
On May 11, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Waiting a month or two longer is worth it, especially considering the
>> 5.4 momentum feels real this time around. We're creating a real TODO,
>> and have a real tentative timeline, so forcing a premature alpha at
>> this point (thus
On 05/11/2011 08:20 PM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
+1
+1
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal Consultant
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://thePHP.cc/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://
Hi!
Most parts (all?) is documented in README.RELEASE_PROCESS I can assist.
Thanks!
Interestingly enough, this file still refers to CVS in trunk. I guess
somebody familiar with up-to-date process has to update it :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com
Hi!
Most parts (all?) is documented in README.RELEASE_PROCESS I can assist.
Thanks!
Interestingly enough, this file still refers to CVS in trunk. I guess
somebody familiar with up-to-date process has to update it :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 11:43 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Stas, in the past we had alphas. Is there any reason why we wouldn't
> > roll one out asap? (revert the typehints stuff and go).
> >
>
> OK, I can do the stuff (typehints, branch, tag) on the weekend. I don't
> know how to roll
Hi!
Waiting a month or two longer is worth it, especially considering the
5.4 momentum feels real this time around. We're creating a real TODO,
and have a real tentative timeline, so forcing a premature alpha at
this point (thus closing off feature/api discussion) is a bad idea. A
big -1 here. I
Hi!
Stas, in the past we had alphas. Is there any reason why we wouldn't
roll one out asap? (revert the typehints stuff and go).
OK, I can do the stuff (typehints, branch, tag) on the weekend. I don't
know how to roll the packages & do the mails though, so if somebody
could volunteer there
Martin Scotta
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> Well, maybe it's time to make some decisions and start to spin the wheels?
>
> I's quite obvious that annotations are out for next release until they are
> a
> docbook/phpDoc style. Personally I do not understand the concept
On May 11, 2011, at 12:20 PM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 18:03 +, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>> Stas, in the past we had alphas. Is there any reason why we wouldn't
>> roll one out asap? (revert the typehints stuff and go).
>
> +1
Waiting a month or two longer is worth it, es
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 18:03 +, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Stas, in the past we had alphas. Is there any reason why we wouldn't
> roll one out asap? (revert the typehints stuff and go).
+1
johannes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net
gt;-Original Message-
>>From: Stas Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@sugarcrm.com]
>>Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 4:41 PM
>>To: PHP Internals
>>Subject: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 again
>>
>>Hi!
>>
>>I would like to propose the following process (of course, date
>-Original Message-
>From: Stas Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@sugarcrm.com]
>Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 4:41 PM
>To: PHP Internals
>Subject: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 again
>
>Hi!
>
>I would like to propose the following process (of course, dates can be moved
>around, etc.
Well, maybe it's time to make some decisions and start to spin the wheels?
I's quite obvious that annotations are out for next release until they are a
docbook/phpDoc style. Personally I do not understand the concept fully, but
my vote will definetly go to the docbook/phpdoc variant. Adding a whol
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
> On 05/10/2011 01:04 PM, Stefan Marr wrote:
>
>>
>> The whole thing required a lot of, what I would characterize as,
>> hand-holding. Internals is not the most open community and needs not
>> only good arguments, but persistence. And, well,
On 05/10/2011 01:04 PM, Stefan Marr wrote:
The whole thing required a lot of, what I would characterize as,
hand-holding. Internals is not the most open community and needs not
only good arguments, but persistence. And, well, it also seem to
require to get in touch with the right people...
And
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 20:27 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> I find it funny that you, Sebastian and others who are supporting docblocks
> over annotations didn't found the time to do it, but you always bring this
> up.
http://pecl.php.net/package/docblock exists. I never used it, but either
it is c
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:28 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
>
>>
>>> so the problem is, that the userland is under-represented in the
>>> development, because they usually not present on the mailing list and on
>>> irc, where discussions and de
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:28 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
>
>> so the problem is, that the userland is under-represented in the
>> development, because they usually not present on the mailing list and on
>> irc, where discussions and decisions happen, and they usually have
>> different
>> priorities an
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:31 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus.
> I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we
> can chat until reach some standardization
Hi all,
Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus.
I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we
can chat until reach some standardization and availability.
Regards,
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:28 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
>>
>>
>> so the probl
>
>
> so the problem is, that the userland is under-represented in the
> development, because they usually not present on the mailing list and on
> irc, where discussions and decisions happen, and they usually have
> different
> priorities and expectations about the PHP language than the core devs.
On 2011-05-10, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> --bcaec51a7af89cba6304a2f01d01
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Mike Robinson wrote:
>
> > May-10-11 11:57 AM Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> >
> > > A native docblock annotation parser would much better suit our
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Mike Robinson wrote:
> May-10-11 11:57 AM Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
>
> > A native docblock annotation parser would much better suit our
> > purposes.
>
> +1, FWIW.
>
>
extending the Reflection::getDocComment to support retrieving the docblock
comment as an a
May-10-11 11:57 AM Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> A native docblock annotation parser would much better suit our
> purposes.
+1, FWIW.
> So, basically, we're in a situation where there's no consensus on
> whether the feature is needed or what the approach should be, and
> people pointing fing
Drak wrote:
On 10 May 2011 21:55, Lester Caine wrote:
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> Thank you Matthew. That was the part of the 'problem' I was not getting
> across very well. The bulk of my existing code base has this documentation
> already, and phpeclipse simply picks it up and runs
On 10 May 2011 21:55, Lester Caine wrote:
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> Thank you Matthew. That was the part of the 'problem' I was not getting
> across very well. The bulk of my existing code base has this documentation
> already, and phpeclipse simply picks it up and runs with it ...
> incl
Am 10.05.2011 17:57, schrieb Matthew Weier O'Phinney:
> I think that's reason enough to pan the feature for 5.4.
Agreed.
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal Consultant
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://thePHP.cc/
--
PHP Internals - PH
On May 10, 2011, at 18:57, "Matthew Weier O'Phinney"
wrote:
> With annotations, my main issue, which I voiced early (and others did as
> well), is that we can already do much of what the RFC proposes by
> parsing annotations in docblocks. In fact, adding the support
> potentially creates more w
Hi!
Well, there is the impact, but seriously, do that many people will use
it in production? I certainly will not, but on the DEV and on my local
development machine it will be enabled period.
Everybody would be using that in production. Production is where the
danger is, nobody would break i
Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
Guilherme often raises ZF's server classes as poster children for why
annotations support is needed. However, I'd like to note that I don't
feel this way at all. In fact, annotations support would create_more_
work for us. Why? Because now we'd need both our docbloc
On 2011-05-10, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> --0016e657b06a1ac32a04a2e91661
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Sebastian Bergmann
> wrote:
>
> > Am 09.05.2011 21:33, schrieb Stefan Marr:
> > > That is how open source works.
> >
> > Traits is a perfect examp
On Mon May 9 07:29 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Andi,
>
> Sorry, but I mentioned on other thread that RFC is outdated.
> I just finished an update to it bringing to recent implementation. The
> idea is to get the "big picture" here, I may have left from previous
> RFC, but if I did
2011/5/10 Ferenc Kovacs :
>
>
>>
>> The Tainted Variable RFC - https://wiki.php.net/rfc/taint - personally
>> I would prefer that feature right now over any new feature, because it
>> gives the ability to check for insecure variable handling and make
>> sure you don't miss something. A major securi
On Tue, 10 May 2011 15:20:14 +0100, Alain Williams wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 03:55:26PM +0200, christian.k...@mohiva.com
wrote:
I'm a userland developer, reading the list since two years I think.
And
I must say I'm totally frustrated about the developing process
itself.
The actual prop
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 03:55:26PM +0200, christian.k...@mohiva.com wrote:
> I'm a userland developer, reading the list since two years I think. And
> I must say I'm totally frustrated about the developing process itself.
>
> The actual proposal process is always the same:
>
> 1. Someone propos
Hi,
On 2011.05.10. 15:13, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
<...>
so the problem is, that the userland is under-represented in the
development, because they usually not present on the mailing list and on
irc, where discussions and decisions happen, and they usually have different
priorities and expectations
On Tue, 10 May 2011 15:13:32 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
so the problem is, that the userland is under-represented in the
development, because they usually not present on the mailing list and
on
irc, where discussions and decisions happen, and they usually have
different
priorities and expectat
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> Hello Internals!
>
> Here is a point of view from an active user land developer on PHP
> development and feature requests and the politics going on in
> internals.
>
> Right now I think PHP has reached a milestone, where it is a need to
> ta
Hello Internals!
Here is a point of view from an active user land developer on PHP
development and feature requests and the politics going on in
internals.
Right now I think PHP has reached a milestone, where it is a need to
take a break from large feature developing, witch takes a lot of time
an
On 10 May 2011, at 12:04, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> performance problems, playing the bloated card, etc.), but they were
> overwhelmed by the positive feedback and the buzz about what can be further
> improved, etc.
> it seems that annotations lacked the critical mass when it was proposed. :(
From m
On 10 May 2011 15:25, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Am 09.05.2011 21:33, schrieb Stefan Marr:
>> That is how open source works.
>
> Traits is a perfect example, indeed: you came to the list with a clear
> specification of the feature as well as arguments for why you think the
> feature is useful.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Am 09.05.2011 21:33, schrieb Stefan Marr:
> > That is how open source works.
>
> Traits is a perfect example, indeed: you came to the list with a clear
> specification of the feature as well as arguments for why you think the
> featu
Am 09.05.2011 21:33, schrieb Stefan Marr:
> That is how open source works.
Traits is a perfect example, indeed: you came to the list with a clear
specification of the feature as well as arguments for why you think the
feature is useful. Moreover, you provided tests that reflected the
specifica
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Am 09.05.2011 18:55, schrieb Marcelo Gornstein:
> > regarding the annotations stuff: it seems the php community (in
> > general) really wants annotations. lots of important and widely used
> > frameworks use them (meaning that not only
Am 09.05.2011 18:55, schrieb Marcelo Gornstein:
> regarding the annotations stuff: it seems the php community (in
> general) really wants annotations. lots of important and widely used
> frameworks use them (meaning that not only the plain php users have a
> use for this feature, but also the users
Hi,
First, the actual patch is working but Implementation and behavior may
change following all comments. This is still a work in progress and all
comments/contributions from everybody are welcome :)
That said :
On 9 May 2011 21:23, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> Objects are only instantiat
Hi!
Objects are only instantiated when requested (getAnnotations() or
getAnnotation())
So how this happens - does the class store the text of the annotation?
Or expressions in the call are evaluated and stored, but the object is
not instantiated?
What if I call getAnnotation() repeatedly - a
Hi Stas,
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I updated the RFC. I may have missed one thing or two, but overall
>> idea and how code behave is there.
>> This question is answered on wiki RFC. =)
>>
>> Here is the direct link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations
>
> So
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hi Lester,
>>
>> I updated the RFC. I may have missed one thing or two, but overall
>> idea and how code behave is there.
>> This question is answered on wiki RFC. =)
>>
>> Here is the direct link: https:
Hi Lester,
What you don't see is that you're against having it because you
already had the effort to built this support.
So answering your question related to use cases, you own codebase is a
good example.
You had to create a parser for docblock because PHP doesn't have
support. And now you're as
Hi!
I updated the RFC. I may have missed one thing or two, but overall
idea and how code behave is there.
This question is answered on wiki RFC. =)
Here is the direct link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations
Some questions I didn't find the answers in the RFC:
1. When the annotation objects
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Lester,
I updated the RFC. I may have missed one thing or two, but overall
idea and how code behave is there.
This question is answered on wiki RFC. =)
Here is the direct link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations
But there is nothing there that explains why
2011 10:51 AM
>
>>To: Andi Gutmans
>
>>Cc: Christopher Jones; internals@lists.php.net
>
>>Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 again
>
>>
>
>>Hi Andi,
>
>>
>
>>That's all I want.
>
>>Someone to at least look at the patch and give me
Hi Lester,
I updated the RFC. I may have missed one thing or two, but overall
idea and how code behave is there.
This question is answered on wiki RFC. =)
Here is the direct link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations
Regards,
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> guilhermebla..
>-Original Message-
>From: guilhermebla...@gmail.com [mailto:guilhermebla...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:51 AM
>To: Andi Gutmans
>Cc: Christopher Jones; internals@lists.php.net
>Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 again
>
>Hi Andi,
>
>That'
Seems like a good plan to me. Hopefully as per schedule it gets us 5.4
this year.
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I has been almost a month since we did our routine talk about 5.4, so here
> it goes again. The patch for the scalar hints seems to be pretty simple (se
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> >
> >
> > > That's simply not true. But just because one group of users feel
> strongly
> > > about something doesn't mean it should go in. There has to be some
> level
> > of
> > > curation or we end up with every feature under the sun resu
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
What I thought it could be changed is:
- Allow PHP to support it natively and also take advantage of opcode cache
- Make API cleaner
Guilherme you still also have to explain WHY we need this. I have a perfectly
functional documentation and hinting setup working
Hi:
On 09 May 2011, at 19:25, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
> Are you sure?
> Please take a look at every topic defined on wiki page. Is there ANY
> topic to be discussed that came from userland?
> If you say yes, please point me to the thread. What I clearly see
> there is that every feature
Hi!
I'm not bitching against do and don't dos... I'm bitching about
ignored feature that are not even discussed.
I think annotations were discussed very extensively. But I totally can
see how one particular aspect could slip through. In this case it is
right to remind people about it and res
Hi Rasmus,
Thanks a lot for the response. This was the first email that I got
that is not rude against my patch.
I have worked on Doctrine annotations support (which is being used by
Symfony and also Typo3), which is a LL(*) parser that processes
docblocks and uses runtime classes to build associ
On 05/09/2011 10:48 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Rasmus,
I already wrote an RFC, I already wrote a patch and none from php-src
gave me some valuable feedback.
During private conversations while flaming messages were popping on ML
thread, I updated the code to be more PHP compatible and w
gards,
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>
>> From: Christopher Jones [mailto:christopher.jo...@oracle.com]
>
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:28 AM
>
>> To: internals@lists.php.net; Guilherme Blanco
>
>> Sub
Rasmus,
I already wrote an RFC, I already wrote a patch and none from php-src
gave me some valuable feedback.
During private conversations while flaming messages were popping on ML
thread, I updated the code to be more PHP compatible and when I went
to update the RFC on wiki, it became offline.
B
>
>
> > That's simply not true. But just because one group of users feel strongly
> > about something doesn't mean it should go in. There has to be some level
> of
> > curation or we end up with every feature under the sun resulting in a
> huge
> > mess.
>
> Are you sure?
> Please take a look at ev
On 05/09/2011 10:32 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Richard,
Again what I commented on other thread and again you barely see what I
mentioned, the feature is ALREADY written in C and compatible with
latest PHP trunk.
I'm not bitching against do and don't dos... I'm bitching about
ignored
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Jones [mailto:christopher.jo...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:28 AM
> To: internals@lists.php.net; Guilherme Blanco
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 again
>
>
>
> On 05/09/2011 07:44 AM,
Hi Richard,
Again what I commented on other thread and again you barely see what I
mentioned, the feature is ALREADY written in C and compatible with
latest PHP trunk.
I'm not bitching against do and don't dos... I'm bitching about
ignored feature that are not even discussed.
I agree with you, it
Hi!
- ReflectionNamespace
- Annotations
- SplArray
- Comparable
Thanks for the list, it's a good start of the discussion. I have only
one note for now - since the goal of all this to try and get 5.4 out
before the end of the year, I think that requires some scope limiting.
By this I mean t
On 05/09/2011 07:44 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that you are not interested on user's request and
rather accept/implement only what the features that interest you. It's
very bad for the language and very bad for all of users.
Rasmus & Stas have already
Hi Rasmus,
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 05/09/2011 07:44 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> - Annotations
>>
>> I already proposed a patch and none here discussed. You rather
>> preferred to shout "PHP doesn't need Annotations" instead of discuss
>> the patch
On 2011-05-09, Marcelo Gornstein wrote:
> regarding the annotations stuff: it seems the php community (in
> general) really wants annotations. lots of important and widely used
> frameworks use them (meaning that not only the plain php users have a
> use for this feature, but also the users of the
> -Original Message-
> From: Stas Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@sugarcrm.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 4:41 PM
> To: PHP Internals
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 again
>
> Hi!
>
> I has been almost a month since we did our routine talk about 5.4, so here it
Stas Malyshev wrote:
It seems to me that you are not interested on user's request and
rather accept/implement only what the features that interest you. It's
very bad for the language and very bad for all of users.
Of course we are interested in user's requests, and we implemented tons
of featur
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Marcelo Gornstein wrote:
> regarding the annotations stuff: it seems the php community (in
> general) really wants annotations. lots of important and widely used
> frameworks use them (meaning that not only the plain php users have a
> use for this feature, but also
regarding the annotations stuff: it seems the php community (in
general) really wants annotations. lots of important and widely used
frameworks use them (meaning that not only the plain php users have a
use for this feature, but also the users of the respective frameworks,
increasing the overall us
Hi!
It seems to me that you are not interested on user's request and
rather accept/implement only what the features that interest you. It's
very bad for the language and very bad for all of users.
Of course we are interested in user's requests, and we implemented tons
of features at user's re
On 05/09/2011 07:44 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
- Annotations
I already proposed a patch and none here discussed. You rather
preferred to shout "PHP doesn't need Annotations" instead of discuss
the patch that was proposed.
If someone doesn't agree that annotations belong in PHP why do
On May 9, 2011, at 2:38 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I see the array shortcuts are on your todo discussion list there. We
>> probably shouldn't get into a full discussion on that since it will span
>> hundreds of messages. But if any of the folks who voted no last time
>> around have chan
On 9 May 2011 15:44, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
wrote:
> It seems to me that you are not interested on user's request and
> rather accept/implement only what the features that interest you. It's
> very bad for the language and very bad for all of users.
But surely it is a motivational factor to le
Martin Scotta
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:44 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd love if you ever discuss these items for 5.4:
>
> - ReflectionNamespace
>
> Currently it's impossible to grab a docblock that documents an
> Annotations, for example, or ev
Hi,
I'd love if you ever discuss these items for 5.4:
- ReflectionNamespace
Currently it's impossible to grab a docblock that documents an
Annotations, for example, or even access the namespace declaration.
It's also impossible to check which "use" is declared on the
namespace/file/class scope.
Hi!
I see the array shortcuts are on your todo discussion list there. We
probably shouldn't get into a full discussion on that since it will span
hundreds of messages. But if any of the folks who voted no last time
around have changed their minds, it would be good to know. And before
deciding, t
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Stefan Marr wrote:
> Hi:
>
> On 09 May 2011, at 09:50, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
> > I'm all for this idea, but the question is - can we have a good design &
> implementation in next 2 months? If we can, great, if we can't - I'd rather
> have 5.4 than wait for it. E.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> another thing that I would love to see on the list: named parameters.
>> it was recently brought up, and I think that the original argument for
>> the rejection isn't true anymore:
>> http://www.php.net/~derick/meeting-notes.html#na
Hi:
On 09 May 2011, at 09:50, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> I'm all for this idea, but the question is - can we have a good design &
> implementation in next 2 months? If we can, great, if we can't - I'd rather
> have 5.4 than wait for it. E.g., if we have somebody ready to commit for
> certain timef
Hi!
another thing that I would love to see on the list: named parameters.
it was recently brought up, and I think that the original argument for
the rejection isn't true anymore:
http://www.php.net/~derick/meeting-notes.html#named-parameters
adding naming parameters would actually help to make c
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 05/08/2011 04:40 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
>> I has been almost a month since we did our routine talk about 5.4, so
>> here it goes again. The patch for the scalar hints seems to be pretty
>> simple (see http://random-bits-of.info/no_sca
On 05/08/2011 04:40 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
I has been almost a month since we did our routine talk about 5.4, so
here it goes again. The patch for the scalar hints seems to be pretty
simple (see http://random-bits-of.info/no_scalar_hints.diff - no
generated files included, that will be done on
Hi!
I has been almost a month since we did our routine talk about 5.4, so
here it goes again. The patch for the scalar hints seems to be pretty
simple (see http://random-bits-of.info/no_scalar_hints.diff - no
generated files included, that will be done on actual commit), so it
should not hold
99 matches
Mail list logo
