>
> Then why not put the base class in the namespace of which it is a base class
> for?
>
Locations source PHP file is the same as in namespace.
App/RestException.php
App/RestException/NotFound.php
App/RestException/BadRequest.php
I did refactoring code, without group use:
http://www.php.net/u
> On 24 Jul 2015, at 2:33 am, "S.A.N" wrote:
>
> 2015-07-23 18:10 GMT+03:00 Marcio Almada :
>> Hi, you replied to the wrong thread ;)
>>
>> 2015-07-22 19:38 GMT-03:00 S.A.N :
>>> I am satisfied, the possibility of group declarations, but the that lack:
>>>
>>> >>
>>> use App\RestException\
2015-07-23 18:10 GMT+03:00 Marcio Almada :
> Hi, you replied to the wrong thread ;)
>
> 2015-07-22 19:38 GMT-03:00 S.A.N :
>> I am satisfied, the possibility of group declarations, but the that lack:
>>
>> >
>> use App\RestException\ // name "RestException", not imported to
>> current namespace :
Hi, you replied to the wrong thread ;)
2015-07-22 19:38 GMT-03:00 S.A.N :
> I am satisfied, the possibility of group declarations, but the that lack:
>
>
> use App\RestException\ // name "RestException", not imported to
> current namespace :(
> {
> Gone,
> NotFound,
> BadRequest
> }
I am satisfied, the possibility of group declarations, but the that lack:
Unfortunately have to write so:
It looks ugly and very strange.
My proposition, the imported end name, if end of without slash.
Like this:
2015-03-11 11:08 GMT+02:00 Patrick ALLAERT :
> Le mar. 10 mars 2015 à 19:29,
Hi all,
since my handle was included in the list compiled by Anthony, I figured
I'd reply to internals list as well.
On So, 2015-03-15 at 10:19 -0400, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
> now. There were a number of voters that I didn't
Le mar. 10 mars 2015 à 19:29, Marcio Almada a
écrit :
> Hi,
>
> 2015-03-10 11:39 GMT-03:00 Patrick ALLAERT :
>
> Hello,
>>
>> Le ven. 6 mars 2015 à 00:44, Marcio Almada a
>> écrit :
>>>
>>> You are right about this. I'll setup a yes/no vote + a vote to decide
>>> between E_WARNING (for consisten
On 3/10/15 1:29 PM, Marcio Almada wrote:
I think we should do some effort to discuss and discard as much options as
possible so we can have max 2 options or maybe eliminate the secondary
voting at all (which is the perfect scenario IMMO), but this requires a
good absolute number of opinions.
I
Hi,
2015-03-10 11:39 GMT-03:00 Patrick ALLAERT :
> Hello,
>
> Le ven. 6 mars 2015 à 00:44, Marcio Almada a
> écrit :
>>
>> You are right about this. I'll setup a yes/no vote + a vote to decide
>> between E_WARNING (for consistency), E_DEPRECATED or E_STRICT. For me this
>> is just a detail but m
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I sent an email last year about this issue, but it got sidetracked (partly
> it was my fault):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg54267.html
> So this time, I would like focusing only on the following:
>
>1
On 2013-01-28, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> --e89a8fb1fbd85c066a04d455d2d7
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>
> The specific case in point is
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2 - which while has more
> supporters than opposers, co
Hi,
Le Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:22:52 +0200, Zeev Suraski a écrit :
> Regardless, an
> ‘open ended’
> voting period is unacceptable IMHO.
I agree with that. An update of the voting rfc (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/
voting) should be made.
However one week only seems a little shorter in my opinion to va
Hi all:
after 1 week , we got the voting result:
25 supports, 5 against. here is the result:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/finally?&#changelog
I am going to commit the patch to trunk. thanks for your great advise. :)
thanks
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Laruence wrote:
> Hi:
>We have
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:42 PM, wrote:
> Stas:
>
> Just b/c there are rarely any women at all that participate on this list,
> could we at list maintain a facade of gender neutrality?
One of my favorite PHP dev folks is Sara Golemon. A fucking rock star.
Female, I believe. I think she might be
Sharon,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:42 PM, wrote:
> Stas:
>
> Just b/c there are rarely any women at all that participate on this list,
> could we at list maintain a facade of gender neutrality? I seriously can't
> believe that you used the word "him". What about "her"? Yeah, "her" as in
> myse
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:42 PM, wrote:
> Stas:
>
> Just b/c there are rarely any women at all that participate on this list,
> could we at list maintain a facade of gender neutrality? I seriously can't
> believe that you used the word "him". What about "her"? Yeah, "her" as in
> myself and e
On 17 April 2012 11:42, wrote:
> Just b/c there are rarely any women at all that participate on this list,
> could we at list maintain a facade of gender neutrality? I seriously can't
> believe that you used the word "him". What about "her"? Yeah, "her" as in
> myself and every other woman
> Just b/c there are rarely any women at all that participate on this list,
> could we at list maintain a facade of gender neutrality? I seriously can't
> believe that you used the word "him". What about "her"? Yeah, "her" as in
> myself and every other woman who codes with PHP whether to ear
Stas:
Just b/c there are rarely any women at all that participate on this list, could
we at list maintain a facade of gender neutrality? I seriously can't believe
that you used the word "him". What about "her"? Yeah, "her" as in myself and
every other woman who codes with PHP whether to earn
On 2011-06-06, Chad Fulton wrote:
> So, I would advocate a "white list" of core devs for formal voting (of
> which, for example, I would not be a member). I think this mailing
> list has grown sufficiently that "public opinion" can be gauged from
> here: everyone can write their opinion without gi
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:27 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
>
> I have a little proposition here.
>
> I'm not —at least currently— known for any app or framework, but I'd like my
> voice to count, that is, if and only if the rest of the community thinks I
> make sane arguments that are worth considering.
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>
> I'd to go with a 60% for language syntax, 50+1 for new exts or sapis.
> Other question is who can vote. For one, I like to have external
> people being able to vote, like frameworks/apps lead developers as
> well as @php.net in general (docs
e answered before we let this
> RFC govern how we do feature definition.
>
> Zeev
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Stas Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@sugarcrm.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:17 PM
> > To: Zeev Suraski
> > Cc: Pierre Joye; PHP Internals
> -Original Message-
> From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 1:46 AM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: Voting Process (was: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on
> the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 moving f
Am 05.06.2011 22:05, schrieb Zeev Suraski:
> - There wasn't sufficient time, or nearly any time at all - between when
> Brian pulled it off the attic, and when a vote was called. If my proposal is
> accepted, there'll have to be at least two weeks between when a clearly
> marked [RFC] email hit
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> The way I see it, we can't employ the voting part of this RFC unless
>> we can agree on rules on how this voting works; It's fine that we
>> don't decide exactly how we're going to do it. But then, it means
>> that we don't get to do it un
Hi!
The way I see it, we can't employ the voting part of this RFC unless
we can agree on rules on how this voting works; It's fine that we
don't decide exactly how we're going to do it. But then, it means
that we don't get to do it until we do decide.
Well, we'd have to vote somehow, e.g. on
take #4..
Hmmm, not sure I like the comparison (with Egypt).
> Major parts in the process weren't executed properly (I've spelled them out
> so I won't repeat them).
> It's quite possible that if they were executed properly, we'd have different
> results. Perhaps not, maybe even probably
[resending as the list appears to reject bit.ly URLs]
> As I agree on everything you wrote here, I don't feel like we need to redo it.
> The votes result is pretty clear, despite 2-3 people not willing to
> vote for whatever reasons:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays/vote
Take a
> Currently the "Feature selection and development" basically says "we'd have
> a public vote on features". It doesn't specify how exactly is the process for
> a
> vote, and while again I think your proposal is good, I don't see why it has
> to be
> part of this RFC - e.g., if we agree that we ha
hi Zeev,
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Pierre,
>
> I'm happy that we agree pretty much completely about the clarifications &
> updates needed for the RFC.
Same here :)
> I do however want to point out that the problematic way the short array
> syntax RFC was executed
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I'm fine if the entire 'Feature selection and development' part goes out of
> the RFC, but if there's any reference to how features are determined, we'd
> better get it right.
Getting it totally out makes little sense as it brings us to the
Hi!
Honestly there are other parts about the voting process that are much
hotter potatoes than the points I brought up - such as who gets to
vote, is 50%+1 enough or do we need stronger majorities for
substantial language changes (67%/75%), can someone who failed
passing an RFC just put it up fo
On 2011-06-05, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Philip Olson wrote:
>
>>> I'd to say that I'm very happy to finally see such discussions
>>> happening, let sort the base (99% is done by our existing RFC about
>>> release process, let adopt it already!) and move on with 5.4.
>>
e-
> From: Stas Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@sugarcrm.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:17 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Pierre Joye; PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: Voting Process (was: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on
> the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 moving forward))
>
Hi!
I'd still like to hear from others what they think about my proposal.
I'd like to update the Release Process RFC with these suggestions if
people like them.
I think these voting process additions totally make sense. But I am not
sure it makes sense to put everything in one release RFC. Th
For those of you who lost these proposals in the flood of RFC related emails of
recent days, here they are again:
---
First, we need to make sure that the RFC is properly evaluated by the members
of internals@, and that there's enough time for the RFC to be discussed here on
the list. As Phil
Pierre,
I'm happy that we agree pretty much completely about the clarifications &
updates needed for the RFC.
I do however want to point out that the problematic way the short array syntax
RFC was executed was the key reason that made me feel these updates were in
fact necessary - I don't thin
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Philip Olson wrote:
>> I'd to say that I'm very happy to finally see such discussions
>> happening, let sort the base (99% is done by our existing RFC about
>> release process, let adopt it already!) and move on with 5.4.
>
>
> This is a prime example of what we're
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Hannes Magnusson
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 17:20, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Some of you may have followed the twitter conversation that Pierre and I
>>> had at the end of last week; In my opinion, t
On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:20 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> I'd to say that I'm very happy to finally see such discussions
> happening, let sort the base (99% is done by our existing RFC about
> release process, let adopt it already!) and move on with 5.4.
This is a prime example of what we're talking abo
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 17:20, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>
>> Some of you may have followed the twitter conversation that Pierre and I had
>> at the end of last week; In my opinion, this dry (or partially wet) run
>> that we had in the last few d
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Some of you may have followed the twitter conversation that Pierre and I had
> at the end of last week; In my opinion, this dry (or partially wet) run that
> we had in the last few days of a voting process pointed to several
> deficiencie
> On Jun 4, 2011, at 3:07 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Stas Malyshev
> wrote:
> >
> >> [VOTE] is a good idea, let's make it [VOTE].
> >>
> >>> There is no plugin used for it yet, and that's my problem with it.
> >>
> >> Well, votes aren't announced yet either :)
On Jun 3, 2011, at 4:43 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Stas Malyshev wrote:
- a call to vote is easily drowned out on the ML with all the noise
I read the same ML as you do :) Using threaded email client it is very
easy to separate new threads and see calls for votes.
That is
Hi!
How does it work? Do you need write permission to the page it is
located on, or is it enough to have login?
Login's enough. There is also an ability to designate admins (see the
docs) which can edit the votes, but I'm not sure if it's needed for
user-based vote.
How do you differentia
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 19:58, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Please keep them in the wiki as we planed to do. THere are plugins and
>> it is very easy to manage, allows per section voting etc.
>
> I've installed voting plugin, see description here:
>
> http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:doodle2
>
> a
right, that's the one I was willing to install as well, great that you
did it! Thanks :)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Please keep them in the wiki as we planed to do. THere are plugins and
>> it is very easy to manage, allows per section voting etc.
>
> I've ins
Hi!
Please keep them in the wiki as we planed to do. THere are plugins and
it is very easy to manage, allows per section voting etc.
I've installed voting plugin, see description here:
http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:doodle2
and example how it looks here at the end (login required to vote):
hi Philip,
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Philip Olson wrote:
> - RFC: Request For Comments
Thanks for the reminder. But RFC got approved at some point as well.
See the numerous W3C RFCs for some known examples.
> And while doing so, not revert to a vote (RFV?) simply because discussing a
>
04, 2011 9:30 AM
To: Pierre Joye
Cc: Stas Malyshev; Derick Rethans; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV]
5.4 moving forward)
On Jun 4, 2011, at 3:07 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
&g
On Jun 4, 2011, at 3:07 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
>> [VOTE] is a good idea, let's make it [VOTE].
>>
>>> There is no plugin used for it yet, and that's my problem with it.
>>
>> Well, votes aren't announced yet either :) I'll try to get it
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> [VOTE] is a good idea, let's make it [VOTE].
>
>> There is no plugin used for it yet, and that's my problem with it.
>
> Well, votes aren't announced yet either :) I'll try to get it set up ASAP
> and see how it works, before announcing the v
Hi!
That is subjective. And even with a threaded client, if there are 80+
new messages then the call for vote is drowned out. *Requiring*
There was never 80+ new messages on different topics on the list. There
are 3-4 topics max, if you not count commit messages. Each of them can
contain doz
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> > - a call to vote is easily drowned out on the ML with all the noise
>
> I read the same ML as you do :) Using threaded email client it is very
> easy to separate new threads and see calls for votes.
That is subjective. And even with a threaded client
Hi!
- a call to vote is easily drowned out on the ML with all the noise
I read the same ML as you do :) Using threaded email client it is very
easy to separate new threads and see calls for votes. Also, voting on ML
does not solve the "drowning out" problem, it makes it worse as about
80% o
Have you guys considered doodle.com? I think you are all stressing way too
much over the voting process. When a vote is closed you can then transfer
the decision to the RFC.
Drak
On 3 June 2011 14:12, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 J
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
>> > Voting on the wiki? Yuck. If you want participation, do it here on the
>> > mailinglist and store the record in the wiki. If all "votes" are showing
>>
>> Voting on ML is messy and means somebo
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> > Voting on the wiki? Yuck. If you want participation, do it here on the
> > mailinglist and store the record in the wiki. If all "votes" are showing
>
> Voting on ML is messy and means somebody needs to read every message on the
> list and look for vote
Why doesnt voting happen using a poll/voting engine. Written in (gasp) PHP!
(although soon PJSON)
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:03 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Voting on the wiki? Yuck. If you want participation, do it here on the
>> mailinglist and store the record in the wiki. If all "votes"
Hi!
Voting on the wiki? Yuck. If you want participation, do it here on the
mailinglist and store the record in the wiki. If all "votes" are showing
Voting on ML is messy and means somebody needs to read every message on
the list and look for votes, however long, tedious and offtopic the
disc
On Jan 12, 2008 9:57 AM, Gregory Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think its painfully obvious that a system to manage the voting is
> > needed. Like I said, ideally it should also have an email interface.
> > People should be able to vote from +1 to -1
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think its painfully obvious that a system to manage the voting is
> needed. Like I said, ideally it should also have an email interface.
> People should be able to vote from +1 to -1 and be able to add a
> comment. Notifications should be send to this list abou
63 matches
Mail list logo
