Hi!
> You make a very sane argument and I agree on the selective process,
> however, every time I read internals it seems that the general attitude is:
>
> "please don't add more to it"
This is obviously not true as each new release adds many things and you
can see results of the votes and read
On 11/01/2013 09:14, dukeofgaming wrote:
Finally, I remember the lack of support for development has been a
problem... so why not call out for support to the community?, from GSoC
to
PHP gurus litterate on Comp Sci and software engineering and
architecture?
I think this has been done before a
2013/1/11 dukeofgaming
> I have a question, maybe it is dumb: why not those opposed to using
> annotations just... refrain from using them?
>
As I said in a previous message:
« (...) providing annotations as it is proposed will make them a core
feature of the language. It will be perceived like
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Ralf Lang wrote:
> Am 11.01.2013 05:55, schrieb dukeofgaming:
> > I have a question, maybe it is dumb: why not those opposed to using
> > annotations just... refrain from using them?
> >
>
> Although I am not the least against annotations, there are valid and
> go
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I have a question, maybe it is dumb: why not those opposed to using
> > annotations just... refrain from using them?
>
> We've been there before. You seem to be thinking as a person who only
> writes software for himself and has to
Am 11.01.2013 05:55, schrieb dukeofgaming:
> I have a question, maybe it is dumb: why not those opposed to using
> annotations just... refrain from using them?
>
Although I am not the least against annotations, there are valid and
good technical reasons why one does not want to have a feature in
Hi!
> I have a question, maybe it is dumb: why not those opposed to using
> annotations just... refrain from using them?
We've been there before. You seem to be thinking as a person who only
writes software for himself and has to deal with software only written
by you. However, not everybody has
I have a question, maybe it is dumb: why not those opposed to using
annotations just... refrain from using them?
Annotations are currently used by the industry through workarounds to the
PHP language, so any argument on it's usefulness is completely moot. Adding
native support for this (no one say
Agree, I thought about Those who don't want to annotations at all. So we can
add 2 extra options for those who don't want annotations at all and those who
wish better proposal :)
PS : I'm with those who do wish annotations.
ב-11 בינו 2013, בשעה 01:07, Ralf Lang כתב/ה:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Just a thought - if the main argument is about syntax - we can
> propose few versions (Without implementing them) and then vote for
> 1) No annotations (attributes) at all. 2) Syntax #1 3) Syntax #2
> and so on.
>
> What do you think?
>
I
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Stas,
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Stas Malyshev >wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > > Sure. Here you go. Here are two examples:
> > >
> > > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/
> >
> > This is a nice text, but practical meaning of it
>> what is not*. You are not a BDFL. And we don't have a unified vision
>
> Neither are you. Yet I am not telling people to shut up, and you are.
> Curious.
I reiterate that there are other people besides Anthony who are
annoyed by your behavior, Stas. You've voiced your opinion, are you
done now?
This could be very well be off-topic but I think it is something that
someone has to say it at some point. Don't worry, there's a vision
in there, near the end of this, please just have the patience of
reading this as a part rant, part wish :)
You all speak about new things, better userland co
Rasmus,
> Rasmus: "A general purpose scripting language with a focus on web
> > development"
> > You: "being simple and practical and focused on the web"
> >
> > While they both have "web" in them, they provide very different goals and
> > metrics with which to gauge contributions by. And that's t
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
>
> Am I guilty of being abusive? Absolutely. But I hope the abusiveness that I
> portray at least tries to be constructive (if it's not always, I'm sorry).
>
>From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
a·bu·sive
/əˈbyo͞osiv/
(1) characterized
Stas, perhaps you haven't noticed, but you are regularly derailing
discussions. I know that there are at least a few other people reading
the mailing list who tire of your behavior.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 01/09/2013 11:48 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Rasmus: "A general purpose scripting language with a focus on web
> development"
> You: "being simple and practical and focused on the web"
>
> While they both have "web" in them, they provide very different goals and
> metrics with which to gauge c
17 matches
Mail list logo
