On Wed, 21 May 2008, Steph Fox wrote:
> I looked into it again (and found things I didn't know before). This one's
> bugging me enough that I braved the Wiki:
>
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/calltimebyref
I don't think we should get rid of it, or add a notice/message/whatever.
Because this:
http:/
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > In my opinion I don't think PHP would be where it is today if it wasn't
> > for being so easy to learn and use.
> >
> > I attribute this directly to the fact that it didn't use a lot of
> > "syntax sugar" that is unreadable and can't b
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Pierre Joye wrote:
> What's the idea behind repeating the same (good or bad) argument
> endlessly with more or less prose around them? Thanks for voting at
> the end anyway.
It's an important thing that people are be able to show their
choices with proper reasoning. I can on
hi Derick,
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd have less issues with adding [] as the array() syntax if it was
> something that PHP didn't support yet. But we're 12 years down the road
> now and since arrays were introduced we've always used array().
Hello Steph,
I am all for it: Making sure PHP's 5.3 default is OFF and issueing a warning
when turning on starting with 5.3.
marcus
Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 3:13:04 PM, you wrote:
> I looked into it again (and found things I didn't know before). This one's
> bugging me enough that I brave
Hello Sebastian,
-1, right now we have [] only in read context. And an array will be
constructed with 'array' keyword. Loosing this distinction is a bit of a
draw back for me.
marcus
Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 12:58:24 AM, you wrote:
> fyi - i added a RFC
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxfor
Derick Rethans wrote:
From what I can see there is
not a major majority in favor - in this case I'd even say that 50%
should not be enough for this to get in.
I know blog comments are not completely scientific and perhaps not an
accurate representation of the whole commnity. But the comme
It's a big +1 for me and this sums it up
> PHP is about building on the knowledge and experience of the typical
> target user. This target user changes slowly as we all get older and
> the industry we are in changes and we need to recognize that and adapt
> the language appropriately. What is
I think a public voting system is not a good thing (though the idea
appealed me in the first place) - but I was convinced that it would lead
to vote without discussion.
For "listening to the user base" I originally had a headline "Discussion
on the Web" were I refered to some blog posts coveri
I think that internal string handling so be very respective to the
specification as you said. Perhaps code points which are not valid for a
separate specification, protocol etc, the conversion should be done in the
functions dealing with those formats. Like if extension family xmlfoo does
not like
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 05:12 +0300, "Stan Vassilev | FM" wrote:
> It looks as there may not be a specific reason not to allow the JS
> syntax as an alternative syntax (while keeping the current one in parallel):
>
> $a = [[1, 2], [3, 4], 5, 6];
>
> $b = ['a' => 1, 'b' =>2];
ok, in a previou
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 09:19 +0200, Derick Rethans wrote:
> Right, and I will add immediately to my coding standard that this is
> forbidden to use.
... which doesn't help people having to read code without being able to
influence the coding style...
johannes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime De
Hello,
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Johannes Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 05:12 +0300, "Stan Vassilev | FM" wrote:
> > It looks as there may not be a specific reason not to allow the JS
> > syntax as an alternative syntax (while keeping the current one
Hi Derick,
I don't think we should get rid of it, or add a notice/message/whatever.
Because this:
http://pastebin.com/d6e055957
could not be done without call time pass by ref right now. So unless
that's fixed, we shouldn't deprecate it.
Hm. Actually those 'expected values' are wrong because
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 13:32 -0700, Chris Stockton wrote:
> My only question, is what does PHP want. When I say PHP, of course I
> am referring to the tens-of-thousands of users that make PHP a
> success. Lets remember that "random commenters" which I would like to
> refer to as PHP's actual user
You don't really have any vote anyway, you lost that when you tricked me for
doing your work for you and took the money and run away..
--Jani
Pierre Joye kirjoitti:
hi Derick,
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd have less issues with adding [] as
Hi!
most people there's not much reason to maintain stuff they don't need
all they get is a bigger ego. If a "user" wants a feature he should step
up
In this particular case it doesn't work - one can step up as much as one
wants but if this feature is not accepted then no amount of stepping
Chris Stockton wrote:
> I think that internal string handling so be very respective to the
> specification as you said. Perhaps code points which are not valid for a
> separate specification, protocol etc, the conversion should be done in the
> functions dealing with those formats. Like if extensio
18 matches
Mail list logo
