On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:28 AM Christoph M. Becker
wrote:
> On 02.09.2016 at 16:57, David Walker wrote:
>
> > Poking around, I'm must not be understanding how TICK opcodes would
> > negatively impact the lookahead. It may be my newness, but the way I'm
> > reading the compilation of ZEND_AST_DIM
On 02.09.2016 at 16:57, David Walker wrote:
> Poking around, I'm must not be understanding how TICK opcodes would
> negatively impact the lookahead. It may be my newness, but the way I'm
> reading the compilation of ZEND_AST_DIM, would not be suspect to random
> TICK opcodes from impacting the lo
>
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
> --
> *From:* David Walker
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 1, 2016 7:40:15 PM
> *To:* Dmitry Stogov; Christoph M. Becker; Marco Pivetta
>
> *Cc:* PHP Internals List; Nikita Popov
> *Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE
ks. Dmitry.
From: David Walker
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 7:40:15 PM
To: Dmitry Stogov; Christoph M. Becker; Marco Pivetta
Cc: PHP Internals List; Nikita Popov
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] E_WARNING on invalid container
read-adccess
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:03 AM Dmitry Stogov
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:03 AM Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I would propose to cancel voting and restart it when the good
> implementation is found.
>
> Otherwise, people may rise their hands for something that can't be
> implemented in good enough way.
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>
Hi Dmitry (e
On Sep 1, 2016 2:04 PM, "Dmitry Stogov" wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
>
> I would propose to cancel voting and restart it when the good
implementation is found.
>
> Otherwise, people may rise their hands for something that can't be
implemented in good enough way.
There is no need to cancel the vote. How
rsday, September 1, 2016 3:05:44 AM
To: Christoph M. Becker; Dmitry Stogov; Marco Pivetta
Cc: PHP Internals List; Nikita Popov
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] E_WARNING on invalid container
read-adccess
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:49 AM David Walker
mailto:d...@mudsite.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Aug
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:49 AM David Walker wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As of now, the scheduled time the vote is to close, the RFC stands 19-4
> (accepted). Given this is my first solo RFC, I'm not really sure protocol
> to go from here. Dmitry does raise that the implementation I put forward
> may
var_dump(\$a[0][0] + \$c[0]);"
>>>
>>> Notice: Trying to get index of a non-array in Command line code on line 1
>>>
>>> Notice: Trying to get index of a non-array in Command line code on line 1
>>> int(0)
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>&
o get index of a non-array in Command line code on line 1
>> int(0)
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> > ____________
>> > From: Marco Pivetta
>> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:10:23 AM
>> > To: Dmitry Stogov
>> > Cc: Chri
esday, August 31, 2016 10:10:23 AM
> > To: Dmitry Stogov
> > Cc: Christoph M. Becker; PHP Internals List; Nikita Popov; David Walker
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] E_WARNING on invalid container
> read-adccess
> >
> >
> > Hi Dmitry,
> >
>
esday, August 31, 2016 10:10:23 AM
> To: Dmitry Stogov
> Cc: Christoph M. Becker; PHP Internals List; Nikita Popov; David Walker
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] E_WARNING on invalid container
> read-adccess
>
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> On 31 Aug 2016 8:37 a.m., "
> *From:* Marco Pivetta
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:10:23 AM
> *To:* Dmitry Stogov
> *Cc:* Christoph M. Becker; PHP Internals List; Nikita Popov; David Walker
> *Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] E_WARNING on invalid container
> read-adccess
>
>
>
Popov; David Walker
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] E_WARNING on invalid container
read-adccess
Hi Dmitry,
On 31 Aug 2016 8:37 a.m., "Dmitry Stogov"
mailto:dmi...@zend.com>> wrote:
>
> I vote NO, because the implementation introduces more problems than intents
> to
nly implemented, and I vote
against it.
Thanks. Dmitry.
From: Niklas Keller
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:58:16 AM
To: Dmitry Stogov; Christoph M. Becker; David Walker; PHP internals
Cc: Nikita Popov
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] E_WARNING on in
Dmitry Stogov schrieb am Mi., 31. Aug. 2016, 08:37:
> I vote NO, because the implementation introduces more problems than
> intents to fix.
>
> For example the following code starts to throw exception:
>
>
>
>
Array access on null should always throw IMO.
BTW, I'm not against the feature, I'm
Hi Dmitry,
On 31 Aug 2016 8:37 a.m., "Dmitry Stogov" wrote:
>
> I vote NO, because the implementation introduces more problems than
intents to fix.
>
> For example the following code starts to throw exception:
>
>
>
Isn't that the point of this RFC?
I would expect this code to only ever work by
I vote NO, because the implementation introduces more problems than intents to
fix.
For example the following code starts to throw exception:
BTW, I'm not against the feature, I'm against the implementation.
It's just can't be committed in current state.
Thanks. Dmitry.
18 matches
Mail list logo
