Hi Internals,
It is two weeks I opened the RFC voting. Even the responses are negative
for now, I would like to remind you to vote.
Because the amount of votes is low, I hope I didn't do some mistake in
RFC procedure.
Thank you, Milo
Dne 26.11.2014 10:48, Miloslav Hůla napsal(a):
Good mo
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Julien Pauli wrote:
> >
> > > So the main question is : *What version will we release next year
> > > ?*
> > >
> > > Will we have a PHP 5.7, or jump directly to a 7.0 ?
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2014 9:34 PM, "Derick Rethans" wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Julien Pauli wrote:
> >
> > > So the main question is : *What version will we release next year ?*
> > >
> > > Will we have a PHP 5.7, or jump directly to a 7.0 ?
> > >
> > > Do
On Sun, 14 Dec 2014, George Bond wrote:
> If you wanted an upgrade path that was not Evil (in the sense of not
> introducing subtle and hard-to-diagnose bugs), could you not change
> the operator to be *un*associative in PHP7? That would effectively
> just make concrete the discouragement/depr
Ok guys, sorry, but I am giving up on it.
I opened the PR in April and all the code necessary with technical
implications are done and registered on the PR. I brought the topic to this
email list in November as requested in the PR and almost 1 month after you
guys requested me to write a RFC. I tr
On Dec 15, 2014 11:53 PM, "Derick Rethans" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2014, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 2014 9:34 PM, "Derick Rethans" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Julien Pauli wrote:
> > >
> > > > So the main question is : *What version will we release next year ?*
> > > >
> >
Pierre Joye wrote on 15/12/2014 17:39:
I hate to say that but if we stick to rules, this rfc and its result are
> >totally invalid and should be canceled.
>
>What a bonkers statement. Just because you don't agree it's not
>"totally invalid". I think 34 vs 2 is a pretty solid argument for
>sticki
On Dec 14, 2014, at 23:50, Leon Sorokin wrote:
>
> On 12/14/2014 10:45 PM, Robert Williams wrote:
>
>> I strongly suspect far more code would be *fixed* if the ternary operator
>> were changed to match what other languages do.
>
> If you have 'incorrectly' functioning code today that results in p
On 12 December 2014 at 23:19, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> 3. Last (and probably least) - a 5.7 that breaks compatibility is
> inconsistent with our version strategy, that suggests 5.7 should be fully
> compatible with 5.6.
Whoa — I'm not talking about breaking compatibility. I'm talking about
generati
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Juan Basso wrote:
>
> Ok guys, sorry, but I am giving up on it.
>
> I opened the PR in April and all the code necessary with technical
> implications are done and registered on the PR. I brought the topic to this
> email list in November as requested in the PR and
Miloslav Hůla:
> It is two weeks I opened the RFC voting. Even the responses are negative
> for now, I would like to remind you to vote.
>
> Because the amount of votes is low, I hope I didn't do some mistake in
> RFC procedure.
It seems to me that it's customary to specify the voting period *in
On 15 December 2014 at 08:51, Derick Rethans wrote:
> Yes, I disagree. It's a time thing. Let's all work on one thing instead
> of *two*. Clearly you must see that there is not enough bandwidth? It
> will also prevent people from "oh we can get this into 5.7" nonsense.
> It's not helpful, and it *
Leon Sorokin wrote on 13/12/2014 22:45:
Hi guys,
I was wondering if 7.0 could be the version to fix the long-standing
incorrect ternary associativity bug in PHP [1]. This seems especially
worthy of reconsideration since the Null Coalesce RFC has been
accepted and merged [2] with the correct a
> On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:08, Christoph Becker wrote:
>
> Miloslav Hůla:
>
>> It is two weeks I opened the RFC voting. Even the responses are negative
>> for now, I would like to remind you to vote.
>>
>> Because the amount of votes is low, I hope I didn't do some mistake in
>> RFC procedure.
>
Oh, thank you both. I added info that voting will be closed next Monday.
Thank you, Milo
Dne 15.12.2014 20:14, Andrea Faulds napsal(a):
On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:08, Christoph Becker wrote:
It seems to me that it's customary to specify the voting period *in
advance* (cf. other RFC currently in th
> -Original Message-
> From: Adam Harvey [mailto:a...@adamharvey.name]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 8:06 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] On the road to PHP 5.7 , or not ?
>
> On 12 December 2014 at 23:19, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > 3. Last (and probabl
> -Original Message-
> From: a...@adamharvey.name [mailto:a...@adamharvey.name] On
> Behalf Of Adam Harvey
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 8:12 PM
> To: Derick Rethans
> Cc: PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] On the road to PHP 5.7 , or not ?
>
> On 15 December 2014 at 08:51, Derick R
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: a...@adamharvey.name [mailto:a...@adamharvey.name] On
> > Behalf Of Adam Harvey
> > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 8:12 PM
> > To: Derick Rethans
> > Cc: PHP Internals
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] On the
Hi!
> The fact that it *may* break *some* code that is used somewhere despite
> documentation recommending against it (pretty much deprecating it
> already for years) is a terrible reason not to re-evaluate the situation
> given the huge opportunity to correct this.
It *will* break some code. The
Am 15.12.2014 20:43 schrieb "Zeev Suraski" :
>
> The extra pain associated with migrating to an interim
> version - that does nothing but spew warnings in the right places -and
> obviously doesn't have any of the other features of 7 - doesn't seem to
be a
> worthwhile experience for most users.
I
On 15/12/14 20:08, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> there are two advantages for having 5.7 and having those deprecated
> messages in 5.7:
> 1, if we introduce the deprecated message in 5.6.x, some people will miss
> it (for example debian jessie has 5.6.2)
> 2, would allow us to stabilize 5.6 instead of kee
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > The fact that it *may* break *some* code that is used somewhere despite
> > documentation recommending against it (pretty much deprecating it
> > already for years) is a terrible reason not to re-evaluate the situation
> > gi
On 12/15/2014 2:11 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
There's not that many breaking changes accepted, and each of them had to
be substantiated. "We had other breaking changes" is not a
substantiation. For example, "most uses of associativity are wrong ones"
- is, but that makes the idea of un-associ
On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 21:08 +0100, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> there are two advantages for having 5.7 and having those deprecated
> messages in 5.7:
> 1, if we introduce the deprecated message in 5.6.x, some people will miss
> it (for example debian jessie has 5.6.2)
So you want Debian to upgrade to 5
Hi,
> On 15 Dec 2014, at 23:32, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 21:08 +0100, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>> there are two advantages for having 5.7 and having those deprecated
>> messages in 5.7:
>> 1, if we introduce the deprecated message in 5.6.x, some people will miss
>> it (for
Good evening,
There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have made a very
simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP 5.7, to be released
at the same time as PHP 7, with no new features whatsoever.
The hope is that we can put this to a vote in 2 weeks’ time an
On 15 December 2014 at 16:09, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> The RFC can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php57
Thanks for the taking the initiative on this.
On timing: I think we should release 5.7 in August (12 months after
5.6), rather than lining it up with 7.0. This gives us the opportunity
Hi Adam,
> On 16 Dec 2014, at 00:15, Adam Harvey wrote:
>
> On 15 December 2014 at 16:09, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> The RFC can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php57
>
> Thanks for the taking the initiative on this.
>
> On timing: I think we should release 5.7 in August (12 months after
Hi,
I was looking at the documentation for DOMDocument::loadHTML() [1] that
mentions the following:
> This function may also be called statically to load and create a DOMDocument
> object. The static invocation may be used when no DOMDocument properties need
> to be set prior to loading.
Howe
On 16 December 2014 00:56:43 GMT, Tjerk Meesters
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I was looking at the documentation for DOMDocument::loadHTML() [1] that
>mentions the following:
>
>> This function may also be called statically to load and create a
>DOMDocument object. The static invocation may be used when no
>DO
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> > On 16 Dec 2014, at 00:15, Adam Harvey wrote:
> >
> > On 15 December 2014 at 16:09, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> >> The RFC can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php57
> >
> > Thanks for the taking the initiative on this.
> >
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Good evening,
>
> There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have made a
> very simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP 5.7, to be
> released at the same time as PHP 7, with no new features whatsoever.
On 12/15/2014 11:59 AM, Robert Williams wrote:
What world is this that you live in where every line of code that’s written is
fully unit-tested
You took my example too literally; forget the unit tests. Imagine the
situation differently:
1. Someone wrote this function:
function add_five_pct
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Leon Sorokin wrote:
>
> On 12/15/2014 11:59 AM, Robert Williams wrote:
>
>> What world is this that you live in where every line of code that’s
>> written is fully unit-tested
>>
>
> You took my example too literally; forget the unit tests. Imagine the
> situation
Hi Xinchen,
> On 16 Dec 2014, at 04:07, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> Good evening,
>>
>> There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have made a
>> very simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP 5.7, to be
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> While playing around with Andrea's unicode literals syntax proposal, I
> was reminded of just how little of ICU is exposed. I've put up a
> short proposal for adding IntlChar exporting these APIs as static
> methods (with a matching non-oop i
>> There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have made a
>> very simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP 5.7, to be
>> released at the same time as PHP 7, with no new features whatsoever.
>>
> I am wondering why we need that? no new features
>
> I thin
Hi everyone,
> On 16 Dec 2014, at 00:15, Adam Harvey wrote:
>
> On 15 December 2014 at 16:09, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> The RFC can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php57
>
> Thanks for the taking the initiative on this.
>
> On timing: I think we should release 5.7 in August (12 months a
Am 14.12.2014 um 19:35 schrieb Andrea Faulds:
> Thoughts?
+1 for consistency :)
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 16/12/2014 05:07, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
Good evening,
There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have made a very
simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP 5.7, to be released at
the same time as PHP 7
Hi Matteo,
> On 16 Dec 2014, at 07:52, Matteo Beccati wrote:
>
> On 16/12/2014 05:07, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>> Good evening,
>>>
>>> There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have made a
>>> very simple RFC. It propose
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Matteo Beccati wrote:
>
> On 16/12/2014 05:07, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>
>>> Good evening,
>>>
>>> There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have made
>>> a very simple RFC. It proposes a f
42 matches
Mail list logo
