On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Nikita,
>>>
>>> I like the idea.
>>> But note, that it may cause some unexpected behaviour and bugs.
>>> I didn't test
Hi
>
> - usage expression in write context (e.g. passing constant by reference)
>
> function foo(&$foo) {}
> foo("abc"[0]);
>
> - destruction of temporary result
>
> ($a . $b)[4]; // if ($a.$b) is destroyed?
>
> - in some cases destruction of temporary result may cause destruction of
> final
hi,
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> The idea from the user perspective is very simple and clear.
> I really don't see what to discuss. All the questions are about
> implementation and they must be solvable.
The idea is all the edge cases and possible issues listed so it c
The idea from the user perspective is very simple and clear.
I really don't see what to discuss. All the questions are about
implementation and they must be solvable.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Nikita Popov
> wrote:
>
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> Thoughts?
There is now more than enough materials to put in a well written RFC. Thanks :-)
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi,
>
> Yeah. It's not a simple patch. In the past, we had a lot of problems after
> introducing foo()[$i] syntax, because some edge cases were not taken in
> account.
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>From what I remember, the same problem that I spotted by foo()[$i] is
the one that we already had with foo()
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>> Hi Nikita,
>>
>> I like the idea.
>> But note, that it may cause some unexpected behaviour and bugs.
>> I didn't test the patch I just guess it on my previous experience
>> introduci
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> Hi Nikita,
>
> I like the idea.
> But note, that it may cause some unexpected behaviour and bugs.
> I didn't test the patch I just guess it on my previous experience
> introducing similar features.
>
> - usage expression in write context (e.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>> Hi Nikita,
>>
>> I like the idea.
>> But note, that it may cause some unexpected behaviour and bugs.
>> I didn't test the patch I just guess it on my previous experience
>> introduci
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> Hi Nikita,
>
> I like the idea.
> But note, that it may cause some unexpected behaviour and bugs.
> I didn't test the patch I just guess it on my previous experience
> introducing similar features.
>
> - usage expression in write context (e.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:35:47PM +0100, Sebastian Krebs wrote:
> 2013/2/26 Lazare Inepologlou
>
> > Hello Nikita,
> >
> > 2013/2/25 Nikita Popov
> >
> > > Hi internals!
> > >
> > > PHP 5.4 added support for expressions of the kind (new Foo)->bar(), (new
> > > Foo)->bar and (new Foo)['bar'].
>
2013/2/26 Lazare Inepologlou
> Hello Nikita,
>
> 2013/2/25 Nikita Popov
>
> > Hi internals!
> >
> > PHP 5.4 added support for expressions of the kind (new Foo)->bar(), (new
> > Foo)->bar and (new Foo)['bar'].
> >
> >
> I guess it must have been discussed, but Is there any technical reason or
> c
Hello Nikita,
2013/2/25 Nikita Popov
> Hi internals!
>
> PHP 5.4 added support for expressions of the kind (new Foo)->bar(), (new
> Foo)->bar and (new Foo)['bar'].
>
>
I guess it must have been discussed, but Is there any technical reason or
conflict that prevents us from having something like n
Hi!
> - in some cases destruction of temporary result may cause destruction of
> final result
>
> ((object)(array("a"=>"b")))->a = "c"; // temporary object may be destroyed
> before assignment
I remember now this was somewhat of a problem - when the temp is
destroyed? I.e. I guess we could stick
Hi Nikita,
I like the idea.
But note, that it may cause some unexpected behaviour and bugs.
I didn't test the patch I just guess it on my previous experience
introducing similar features.
- usage expression in write context (e.g. passing constant by reference)
function foo(&$foo) {}
foo("abc"[0]
On 02/25/2013 04:33 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
When it comes to changing syntax, there is no such thing as too small
of an RFC IMO. Runtime changes can occasionally be hand-waved, but
syntax changes are serious business.
Seeing this quoted makes me realize I expressed myself poorly. What I
me
>>> When it comes to changing syntax, there is no such thing as too small
>>> of an RFC IMO. Runtime changes can occasionally be hand-waved, but
>>> syntax changes are serious business.
>
Seeing this quoted makes me realize I expressed myself poorly. What I
meant to convey was:
When it comes to
Am 26.02.2013 um 00:08 schrieb "Stas Malyshev" :
> Hi!
>
>> Don't consider it as a syntax change, only as a bugfix. It must have been a
>> bug, that this degree of conformity was not yet reached. :-P
>
> If it changes syntax, it's by definition a syntax change. It does not
> matter if you think
2013/2/25 Nikita Popov
> Hi internals!
>
> PHP 5.4 added support for expressions of the kind (new Foo)->bar(), (new
> Foo)->bar and (new Foo)['bar'].
>
> I'd like to extend this support to any expression instead of just new.
>
> Why should be do this? Because it's just an arbitrary restriction. R
Hi!
> Don't consider it as a syntax change, only as a bugfix. It must have been a
> bug, that this degree of conformity was not yet reached. :-P
If it changes syntax, it's by definition a syntax change. It does not
matter if you think it should be changed and if you think it's a bug, it
still sho
On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 23:20 +0100, Bob Weinand wrote:
> Don't consider it as a syntax change, only as a bugfix. It must have been a
> bug, that this degree of conformity was not yet reached. :-P
>
> It's only stupid to vote about such microscopic changes as long as there are
> no real arguments ag
Hi Nikita,
Am 25.02.2013 um 23:20 schrieb Bob Weinand :
[...]
>> When it comes to changing syntax, there is no such thing as too small
>> of an RFC IMO. Runtime changes can occasionally be hand-waved, but
>> syntax changes are serious business.
I very much like it, it’s a good change. But can we
Am 25.2.2013 um 23:07 schrieb Sara Golemon :
>> (For me, it's changes like Sara's trailing comma proposal that are too
>> small to have needed an RFC)
>>
> When it comes to changing syntax, there is no such thing as too small
> of an RFC IMO. Runtime changes can occasionally be hand-waved, but
>
> (For me, it's changes like Sara's trailing comma proposal that are too
> small to have needed an RFC)
>
When it comes to changing syntax, there is no such thing as too small
of an RFC IMO. Runtime changes can occasionally be hand-waved, but
syntax changes are serious business.
-Sara
--
PHP In
PHP 5.4 added support for expressions of the kind (new Foo)->bar(), (new
Foo)->bar and (new Foo)['bar'].
I'd like to extend this support to any expression instead of just new.
I like it, we discussed this 2 years ago, could you address my original
use case? Would it work:
$value = ($obj
hi,
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Christopher Jones
wrote:
> I think a brief RFC would be good to clarify and give some more examples of
> what "any expression" is. Seeing more examples would help people
> evaluate the impact and see the use cases. It would also help the doc
> process.
>
> (
On 02/25/2013 08:14 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
Hi internals!
PHP 5.4 added support for expressions of the kind (new Foo)->bar(), (new
Foo)->bar and (new Foo)['bar'].
I'd like to extend this support to any expression instead of just new.
Why should be do this? Because it's just an arbitrary rest
Yeah, like this as well, and +1 for consistency.
> PHP 5.4 added support for expressions of the kind (new Foo)->bar(), (new
> Foo)->bar and (new Foo)['bar'].
>
> I'd like to extend this support to any expression instead of just new.
>
A winner is you.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.
On Feb 25, 2013 5:14 PM, "Nikita Popov" wrote:
>
> Thoughts?
I like the idea. I can't see nor imagine any BC breaks that could be
introduce by this change.
Cheers,
It makes sense to me. +1 for making the syntax more consistent and natural.
- Jon
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> Hi internals!
>
> PHP 5.4 added support for expressions of the kind (new Foo)->bar(), (new
> Foo)->bar and (new Foo)['bar'].
>
> I'd like to extend this sup
31 matches
Mail list logo
