On Tue, 5 Jan 2016, Fred Emmott wrote:
> I’m planning on adding this functionality in some form to HHVM,
> however if it’s also wanted in PHP, I’d rather not add something
> HHVM-specific and will be happy to put up RFCs :)
>
> Location Information
>
>
> token_get_all() returns a line num
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Aaron Piotrowski wrote:
>
> > Before anything can be done with the @ operator, changes will need
> > to be made to remove warnings for conditions that the code has no
> > way of checking prior to calling these functions.
On 6 January 2016 02:13:53 GMT, "Paul M. Jones" wrote:
>
>> On Jan 5, 2016, at 17:37, Larry Garfield
>wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, that is an accurate summary of my position.
>>
>> It is also an inaccurate summary of your statements on this list to
>date, as well as elsewhere, which have been accusatory,
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 6:16 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> > Would be nice if someone could come up with a more explicit name for the
> > flag. TOKEN_FULL is not obvious, at least to me. TOKEN_ALWAYS_ARRAY?
> >
> Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of the na
> On Jan 6, 2016, at 3:28 AM, Rowan Collins wrote:
>
> On 6 January 2016 02:13:53 GMT, "Paul M. Jones" wrote:
>>
>>
>> When speech-policing is proposed without irony, and welcomed with
>> applause, I respond correctly: with scorn and contempt, as is deserved.
>
> You state this like some kind
Kevin Smith wrote on 06/01/2016 11:58:
On Jan 6, 2016, at 3:28 AM, Rowan Collins wrote:
On 6 January 2016 02:13:53 GMT, "Paul M. Jones" wrote:
When speech-policing is proposed without irony, and welcomed with
applause, I respond correctly: with scorn and contempt, as is deserved.
You state
Hi,
I would like to propose an addition to the openssl ext - extending
openssl_encrypt and openssl_decrypt to support AEAD (Authenticated
Encryption with Additional Data - GCM and CCM modes support). There was
some discussion in past and people have been asking about that for some
time so I finall
Stas,
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> In response to significant feedback here and elsewhere, I have
>> expanded the text of the RFC significantly. It now includes the text
>> of the Contributor Covenant 1.3.0 as well as including verbage about
>> updating it
Hi Jakub,
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Jakub Zelenka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose an addition to the openssl ext - extending
> openssl_encrypt and openssl_decrypt to support AEAD (Authenticated
> Encryption with Additional Data - GCM and CCM modes support). There was
> some discu
Hi,
I'll only comment on some specific points, so hence the trimmed email.
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Stanislav Malyshev
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Jan 2016, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> >
> >> I added a section on transparency, Conflict of Intere
Hi,
>>> This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public
>>> spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.
>>
>> I think this is way too broad. "individual is representing the project
>> or its community" can be construed to mean basically anything -
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Bishop Bettini wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Jakub Zelenka wrote:
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/openssl_aead
>
>
> I think the API might need to be more generic so that any future cipher
> modes with different parameters could also
+1 thanks Jakub!
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Jakub Zelenka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Bishop Bettini wrote:
>
> > Hi Jakub,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Jakub Zelenka wrote:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/openssl_aead
> >
> >
> > I think the API might
For the record, you make some good points in this message. I just want
to make that clear, since I've been critical of your tone elsewhere, and
don't want to be seen as being negative for negativity's sake.
However, I wanted to reply to one rhetorical question:
Paul M. Jones wrote on 06/01/201
Hi,
Le 06/01/2016 16:21, Anthony Ferrara a écrit :
> I have received no less than 4 direct threats of violence that were
directly due to my involvement
> with the Scalar Type Declarations RFC.
I'm surprised it went to that point but I'm glad you're talking about
the STH saga, because this is
> On Jan 6, 2016, at 10:30, Rowan Collins wrote:
>
> For the record, you make some good points in this message. I just want to
> make that clear, since I've been critical of your tone elsewhere, and don't
> want to be seen as being negative for negativity's sake.
Noted, and appreciated.
> H
François Laupretre wrote on 06/01/2016 16:34:
So, let's analyze what happened when I was accused of 'sabotage' and
'strong-arming' because I had sent a supposedly offending mail to
Sara. In my reply, I published the mail in question so that everyone
could judge by itself whether it was offendi
On 5 January 2016 at 10:39, Rouven Weßling wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> There is no mb_eregi_replace_callback function. Code using it will have to be
> converted to use mb_ereg_replace_callbackwith the i option."
>
This is possibly a stupid question, but one that needs to be asked anyway:
Have you chec
Results for project PHP master, build date 2016-01-06 06:30:42+02:00
commit: fd6ec7f
previous commit:928d2cb
revision date: 2016-01-06 00:03:37+08:00
environment:Haswell-EP
cpu:Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz 2x18 cores,
stepping 2, LLC 45 MB
Paul M. Jones wrote on 06/01/2016 16:50:
The reality is that those people will be put off contributing no matter how much you tell
them that it is "just words", and the community will be the poorer for their
loss.
I assert that you don't know, and cannot measure, if it's poorer for their loss.
On 31 December 2015 at 14:52, Junade Ali wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> I am looking to submit an RFC in order to remove the error suppression
> operator in PHP, namely the @ symbol.
>
Hi Junade,
TL:DR - I think just deprecating the silence operator without having a
plan for something better is not going
> On 06 Jan 2016, at 18:03, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>
> This is possibly a stupid question, but one that needs to be asked anyway:
Certainly not a stupid question.
> Have you checked that simply converting code that uses
> mb_eregi_replace to using mb_ereg_replace_callback with the i flag
> behaves
On 1/4/16 4:06 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
Hey all,
I have created a new RFC for the PHP Project to adopt the Contributor
Covenant as the official Code of Conduct for the project
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/adopt-code-of-conduct
Let me know what you think or if there are any concerns
I'm not kee
Hi Dan,
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>
>
> // If FileException, NetworkException are thrown inside 'foo',
> // they are automatically
> // caught and execution continues to call bar()
> foo() suppress FileException, NetworkException;
> bar();
>
>
> That would allow people
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:34 AM, François Laupretre wrote:
> So, let's analyze what happened when I was accused of 'sabotage' and
> 'strong-arming' because I had sent a supposedly offending mail to Sara. In
> my reply, I published the mail in question so that everyone could judge by
> itself wheth
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
>> Maybe TOKEN_ASSOC? Since it provides associative array elements (as
>> opposed to the current indexed array behavior)
>
> I like that one.
>
Have updated the RFC accordingly.
I've also ren
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> Basically: token_get_all() is rather slow. I think it says something that
> getting the tokens of a script is about as slow as lexing it, parsing it
> into an internal AST and constructing an object-based userland AST for it.
> If you use token
Hi Joe,
Joe Watkins wrote:
Morning internalz,
I'm going to keep it simple, because I'm sure everybody is getting a
bit bored ...
I object to the idea that we should try to limit "offence" ... it's not
quantifiable, and it doesn't matter whatever, I'm offended by all sorts of
things .
Hi,
Sara Golemon wrote:
So, I'm all for a mediation team, but no sanction, even temporary, without a
public vote.
I'm glad you and I agree on this.
There is the risk with public votes that whoever votes a particular way
gets harassed for the way they voted. While this doesn't happen very
m
Hi!
> I'm glad you brought this back up, but you seem to have remembered a
> few things incorrectly.
And this is a good example why information from both sides is essential.
Everybody has their own story, and human memory is unbelievably faulty
even with the best of intentions. When some exciteme
> On Jan 6, 2016, at 13:13, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> Furthermore, if people think the CoC enforcement team have been too
> heavy-handed with their application of the code, the team can be replaced.
Easiest way to avoid that is not to have a continuing team. Instead, randomly
select of a respo
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Jakub Zelenka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Bishop Bettini wrote:
>
>>
>> I think the API might need to be more generic so that any future cipher
>> modes with different parameters could also be passed in.
>>
>> Please see note in
> https://wik
> On Jan 6, 2016, at 12:54, Tom Worster wrote:
>
> I think it's perhaps too general to be of great use to us here but The Code
> Manifesto is a good example of the positive approach.
> https://github.com/kayladnls/code-manifesto/blob/master/README.md
Agreed that it's too general, and while ni
On 1/6/16 2:23 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sara Golemon wrote:
>>> So, I'm all for a mediation team, but no sanction, even temporary,
>>> without a
>>> public vote.
>>>
>> I'm glad you and I agree on this.
>
> There is the risk with public votes that whoever votes a particular
> way gets har
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote:
>
> > On Jan 6, 2016, at 13:13, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> >
> > Furthermore, if people think the CoC enforcement team have been too
> heavy-handed with their application of the code, the team can be replaced.
>
> Easiest way to avoid that is not
Hi!
> Also, I think it's worth bearing in mind that unintentional offence
> which is not persistent is unlikely to fall under this rule. Consider
> that this is roughly the standard that actual law follows, e.g. Section
> 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 in the UK:
>
>> (1) A person is guilty of a
Hi!
> There is the risk with public votes that whoever votes a particular way
> gets harassed for the way they voted. While this doesn't happen very
> much in technical discussions, I think there's a greater risk of that in
> a vote on whether to sanction a person for unacceptable behaviour.
Vote
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> I'm glad you brought this back up, but you seem to have remembered a
>> few things incorrectly.
>
> And this is a good example why information from both sides is essential.
> Everybody has their own story, and human memory is unbelievab
> On Jan 6, 2016, at 13:38, Ryan Pallas wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote:
>
> > On Jan 6, 2016, at 13:13, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> >
> > Furthermore, if people think the CoC enforcement team have been too
> > heavy-handed with their application of the code,
Hi Stas,
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Also, I think it's worth bearing in mind that unintentional offence
which is not persistent is unlikely to fall under this rule. Consider
that this is roughly the standard that actual law follows, e.g. Section
4A of the Public Order Act 1986 in the UK:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Bishop Bettini wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Jakub Zelenka wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Bishop Bettini wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think the API might need to be more generic so that any future cipher
>>> modes with different paramete
On 1/6/16, 2:35 PM, "Paul M. Jones" wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 2016, at 12:54, Tom Worster wrote:
>>
>> I think it's perhaps too general to be of great use to us here but The
>>Code Manifesto is a good example of the positive approach.
>>https://github.com/kayladnls/code-manifesto/blob/master/README.m
Le 06/01/2016 19:56, Sara Golemon a écrit :
First, I didn't accuse you of anything. My response to your private
email, was a private email back saying "hey, I don't know why you're
so angry and name-cally, but go ahead and move forward with your
version. I just didn't want it to get left on t
> On Jan 6, 2016, at 14:21, Tom Worster wrote:
>
> On 1/6/16, 2:35 PM, "Paul M. Jones" wrote:
>
>>> On Jan 6, 2016, at 12:54, Tom Worster wrote:
>>>
>>> I think it's perhaps too general to be of great use to us here but The
>>> Code Manifesto is a good example of the positive approach.
>>> h
Le 06/01/2016 20:23, Andrea Faulds a écrit :
Hi,
Sara Golemon wrote:
So, I'm all for a mediation team, but no sanction, even temporary,
without a
public vote.
I'm glad you and I agree on this.
There is the risk with public votes that whoever votes a particular way
gets harassed for the way
On 6 January 2016 19:42:29 GMT, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>I love it how The Law spends so much text and yet leaves so much
>unspecified and open to interpretation.
Welcome to Common Law. Defining the details is basically the job of judges,
applying the intent of the law to individual cases as t
Le 06/01/2016 20:38, Ryan Pallas a écrit :
I agree, a conflict resolution document *and team* seems infinitely better.
This team's job is to resolve things quietly and without further incident,
however if action may be required - its an open vote (as previously
suggested).
Agreed. 'Don't be ev
All,
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:43 PM, François Laupretre wrote:
> Le 06/01/2016 20:38, Ryan Pallas a écrit :
>>
>>
>> I agree, a conflict resolution document *and team* seems infinitely
>> better.
>> This team's job is to resolve things quietly and without further incident,
>> however if action m
On 6 January 2016 at 21:43, François Laupretre wrote:
> Le 06/01/2016 20:38, Ryan Pallas a écrit :
>
>>
>> I agree, a conflict resolution document *and team* seems infinitely
>> better.
>> This team's job is to resolve things quietly and without further incident,
>> however if action may be requi
Hi François,
François Laupretre wrote:
Le 06/01/2016 20:38, Ryan Pallas a écrit :
I agree, a conflict resolution document *and team* seems infinitely
better.
This team's job is to resolve things quietly and without further
incident,
however if action may be required - its an open vote (as prev
On 6 January 2016 at 18:55, Ryan Pallas wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> having the function name as a string will make it harder to find in an IDE
> since go to definition won't work (and since functions aren't first class
> citizens as in javascript, we can't pass a raw name AFAIK)
Yes, this is a limition
On 1/5/16 6:03 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
On 1/5/16 4:13 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
I had numerous instances in the past where skillful third-party
mediation allowed resolving differences and pave way for cooperation.
So having people that can do that and are publicly known address for
doing
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jakub Zelenka wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Bishop Bettini wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Jakub Zelenka wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Bishop Bettini wrote:
>>>
I think the API might need to be more g
Hi!
> It is broad for a reason. If harassment that's obviously connected
> with the project (it would need to be obviously connected) happens
> off-list, that's still problematic. I think limiting the scope to just
> the project territories is dangerous as it provides too easy of a way
> for membe
Hi Andrea,
> The key part of that is "intent". I do note that it doesn't include the
word "offensive", but I'm not sure that's important, since anything covered
by "offensive" is would also be covered by at least one of "threatening",
"abusive" or "insulting".
That it is omitted from the letter o
55 matches
Mail list logo
