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
10 matches
Mail list logo
