Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

On 13/06/2016 15:32, Joe Watkins wrote: Afternoon internals, Is there a roadmap somewhere that describes this, or any background discussion of doing this within the 7.x series, rather than planning for 8.0? We have no such sensible thing as a plan :) Heh, fair enough. :) I think a roadmap

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

Hi, Just take into account, that 7.0 was released more than after 10 years of php-5 life, and of course we don't have any plans or goal for 8.0 yet. Waiting another 10 years for fixing inconsistencies, that we "missed" in 7.0, would limit our progress on bytecode and VM optimizations targeted

[PHP-DEV] UGLY Benchmark Results for PHP Master 2016-06-14

Results for project PHP master, build date 2016-06-14 06:29:14+03:00 commit: 14e790a previous commit:e933da9 revision date: 2016-06-13 18:20:37-07:00 environment:Haswell-EP cpu:Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz 2x18 cores, stepping 2, LLC 45 MB

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

Hi, The "obvious optimization" mentioned in the RFC, assumes just removing a line of code. https://github.com/zendtech/php-src/blob/zend-jit/ext/opcache/Optimizer/zend_inference.c#L2900 This may prevent run-time checks for IS_UNDEF on each read of the corresponding argument variables. I'v

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [PRE-VOTE] Union types

> Am 13.06.2016 um 14:36 schrieb Christoph Becker : > > On 04.06.2016 at 16:37, Bob Weinand wrote: > >>> Am 4.6.2016 um 16:17 schrieb Christoph Becker : >>> >>> On 04.06.2016 at 14:15, Bob Weinand wrote: >>> > Am 04.06.2016 um 13:45 schrieb Niklas Keller : > > For Aerys\Host it co

[PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types

Hey, It has been long enough under discussion... I've put union types into vote. Please find the RFC located at: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/union_types The vote is open until the 23th. Thanks for voting, Bob

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Bob Weinand wrote: > It has been long enough under discussion... I've put union types into > vote. > > Please find the RFC located at: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/union_types Not clear on some of the wording. When you say: "This RFC pr

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types

On 6/14/2016 5:22 PM, Derick Rethans wrote: > Not clear on some of the wording. When you say: > > "This RFC proposes a vote on whether ?Foo shall be replaced by Foo | > null in general." > > Do you mean that ?Foo will no longer be allowed at all if this RFCs > passes? > > cheers, > Derick >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

On 6/14/2016 12:43 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > Hi, > > Just take into account, that 7.0 was released more than after 10 > years of php-5 life, and of course we don't have any plans or goal > for 8.0 yet. > > Waiting another 10 years for fixing inconsistencies, that we "missed" > in 7.0, would limi

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types

> Am 14.06.2016 um 18:09 schrieb Fleshgrinder : > > On 6/14/2016 5:22 PM, Derick Rethans wrote: >> Not clear on some of the wording. When you say: >> >> "This RFC proposes a vote on whether ?Foo shall be replaced by Foo | >> null in general." >> >> Do you mean that ?Foo will no longer be allow

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types

> Am 14.06.2016 um 17:22 schrieb Derick Rethans : > > On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Bob Weinand wrote: > >> It has been long enough under discussion... I've put union types into >> vote. >> >> Please find the RFC located at: >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/union_types

[PHP-DEV] [RFC] RNG fixes

Hey Internals, I realise I'm cutting it close with this one, but I want to propose some changes to our standard random number generators. The downside of this proposal is that our RNGs (rand() and mt_rand()) are seedable and reproduce identical streams (platform dependant) for any given seed. How

[PHP-DEV] [RFC] Throw Error in Extensions

Hello, I have written a short RFC to change most conditions in extensions that raise E_ERROR or E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR to throw an instance of Error instead. This change follows the conversion of most of these errors in the engine to thrown exceptions. RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/throw_error_in

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] RNG fixes

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Leigh wrote: > Hey Internals, > > I realise I'm cutting it close with this one, but I want to propose some > changes to our standard random number generators. > > The downside of this proposal is that our RNGs (rand() and mt_rand()) are > seedable and reproduce i

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] RNG fixes

On 6/14/2016 6:46 PM, Leigh wrote: > The issues I want to bring up for discussion are. > > * Replacing mt_rand() and rand() to a strong, modern RNG. > * Alternatively, fixing the current mt_rand() implementation to make it > standard > * Aliasing rand() to mt_rand() to improve output and cross-pla

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

On 06/14/2016 07:17 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote: On 6/14/2016 12:43 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote: Hi, Just take into account, that 7.0 was released more than after 10 years of php-5 life, and of course we don't have any plans or goal for 8.0 yet. Waiting another 10 years for fixing inconsistencies, th

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types

Hi! > The separate vote is to remove ?string by string | null as only option. So we just held a vote on introducing ?type a month ago, to now vote on removing it. Am I the only one to whom it doesn't make a lot of sense? -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Deve

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] RNG fixes

On 14.06.2016 at 19:45, Fleshgrinder wrote: > On 6/14/2016 6:46 PM, Leigh wrote: >> The issues I want to bring up for discussion are. >> >> * Replacing mt_rand() and rand() to a strong, modern RNG. >> * Alternatively, fixing the current mt_rand() implementation to make it >> standard >> * Aliasing

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types

On 6/14/2016 8:00 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > So we just held a vote on introducing ?type a month ago, to now vote on > removing it. Am I the only one to whom it doesn't make a lot of sense? > Exactly what I question too especially because the other vote was so overwhelmingly positive. -- R

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] RNG fixes

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 at 18:45 Fleshgrinder wrote: > Why do we need so many functions to get a random int anyways if we now > have random_int()? I would like to see all of them deprecated and > removed in PHP 8.0. Lets see if others support this option. (I'm not even sure I do right now) > I do

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] RNG fixes

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 at 19:14 Christoph Becker wrote: > > In my opinion, we need at least one random function which yields > reproducible values. > > -- > Christoph M. Becker > Hi Christoph, Even with the proposed changes both functions will still be capable of reproducible sequences, just diffe

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types

> On 14 ביוני 2016, at 21:00, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > > Hi! > >> The separate vote is to remove ?string by string | null as only option. > > So we just held a vote on introducing ?type a month ago, to now vote on > removing it. Am I the only one to whom it doesn't make a lot of sense? >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] RNG fixes

On 14.06.2016 at 20:46, Leigh wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 at 19:14 Christoph Becker wrote: > >> In my opinion, we need at least one random function which yields >> reproducible values. > > Even with the proposed changes both functions will still be capable of > reproducible sequences, just diff

Re: [PHP-DEV] How to indicate support for unimplemented part of an RFC

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 at 22:30 Matthew Browne wrote: > Hi, > What is the proper way to express support for an item that's not an > official part of an RFC but is listed as an idea for future > consideration? Specifically I wanted to give my "+1" for covariant > return types which are mentioned in p

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] RNG fixes

On 6/14/2016 8:56 PM, Christoph Becker wrote: > Yes, I'm aware of that, and that change isn't an issue for me (except > maybe that it might happen in a minor version). I was responding to > Richard (Fleshgrinder) who suggested to remove rand() and mt_rand() > alltogether, because there is random_i

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

Hi! > Isn't that just an excuse to creep in breaking changes? We all > understand the goal here and we all are in favor of it. The problem is > that it still is a breaking change. It would be better to elevate the > E_INFO to an E_WARNING and create that PHP-8.0 branch with the actual > error and

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types

> I'm personally against Union types because it makes no sense for classes I've been over this before but I'll repeat it here for completeness: this is not true. Unions provide a way to discriminate between potential sets of types. Even among classes there is power in unions. Consider the idea of

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] RNG fixes

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 20:13 Fleshgrinder wrote: > On 6/14/2016 8:56 PM, Christoph Becker wrote: > > Yes, I'm aware of that, and that change isn't an issue for me (except > > maybe that it might happen in a minor version). I was responding to > > Richard (Fleshgrinder) who suggested to remove r

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

On 6/14/2016 9:43 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Changing notice to warning is a breaking change too :) And I'm not sure > how rushing 8.0 helps anything if you're afraid of breaks - you get > useful features later but also bigger breaks. Long term it doesn't > matter anyway unless 7.1 is somehow

Re: [PHP-DEV] Request for Karma

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote: > I would like to request Karma for the Wiki. > > I would like to write RFCs for the features that I develop and help > others with their RFCs. > > My Wiki username is "fleshgrinder". > > -- > Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger > > hi, I've gr

Re: [PHP-DEV] Request for Karma

On 6/14/2016 10:18 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > hi, > > I've granted you with rfc karma > Thank you so very much! :) Never mind the delay, it's just that the waiting time is always the worst. ;) -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types

> Am 14.06.2016 um 20:35 schrieb Fleshgrinder : > > On 6/14/2016 8:00 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> So we just held a vote on introducing ?type a month ago, to now vote on >> removing it. Am I the only one to whom it doesn't make a lot of sense? >> > > Exactly what I question too especially b

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types

> Am 14.6.2016 um 21:53 schrieb Levi Morrison : > >> I'm personally against Union types because it makes no sense for classes > > I've been over this before but I'll repeat it here for completeness: > this is not true. Unions provide a way to discriminate between > potential sets of types. Even

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types

On 14 ביוני 2016, at 22:53, Levi Morrison mailto:le...@php.net>> wrote: I'm personally against Union types because it makes no sense for classes I've been over this before but I'll repeat it here for completeness: this is not true. There are more than enough constructs in PHP to handle all the

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] RNG fixes

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Davey Shafik wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 20:13 Fleshgrinder wrote: > > > On 6/14/2016 8:56 PM, Christoph Becker wrote: > > > Yes, I'm aware of that, and that change isn't an issue for me (except > > > maybe that it might happen in a minor version). I was re

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] RNG fixes

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 at 20:56 Davey Shafik wrote: > > I think as this is a BC break it should require the 2/3 majority. I do > support fixing the RNGs though. > Sure if there's a consensus on that, I have no problem with it. Have you done any checks on GitHub etc to see how widespread this usage

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > On 14 ביוני 2016, at 22:53, Levi Morrison wrote: > > I'm personally against Union types because it makes no sense for classes > > > I've been over this before but I'll repeat it here for completeness: > this is not true. > > > There are mor

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

On 14/06/2016 20:43, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: And I'm not sure how rushing 8.0 helps anything if you're afraid of breaks - you get useful features later but also bigger breaks. Long term it doesn't matter anyway unless 7.1 is somehow special, which is not. Also, having just two minor versions se

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] RNG fixes

On 6/14/16 12:46 PM, Leigh wrote: The RFC can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rng_fixes Hi Leigh, Thanks for putting this together. I am strongly pro on two points and moderately contra on the other two. I'd prefer separated votes, even though I don't have a vote. I numbered the 4 b

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

On 14/06/2016 11:43, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > Just take into account, that 7.0 was released more than after 10 years > of php-5 life, and of course we don't have any plans or goal for 8.0 yet. > > Waiting another 10 years for fixing inconsistencies, that we "missed" in > 7.0, would limit our progres

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] RNG fixes

On 6/14/16 1:45 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote: Why do we need so many functions to get a random int anyways if we now have random_int()? For backwards compatibility. There are programs that use these and little to gain from breaking them. Tom -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing Li

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] RNG fixes

On 6/14/16 3:12 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote: Call me ignorant but is this required in typical web applications? PHP is used for various things, not just web apps. I use it for various other things because its the language in which I am most fluent. And the requirements of *typical* apps using PH

[PHP-DEV] [OpenSSL] Support for ECC public key generation

This is a short introduction of a feature I've been working on. Summary --- The current OpenSSL extension only supports generating RSA key pairs. The PR [1] adds support for ECC (Elliptic curve cryptography) key generation. The corresponding bug is 61204 [2]. --- Motivation -- Why

Re: [PHP-DEV] [OpenSSL] Support for ECC public key generation

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Dominic Luechinger wrote: > This is a short introduction of a feature I've been working on. > > Summary > --- > The current OpenSSL extension only supports generating RSA key pairs. > The PR [1] adds support for ECC (Elliptic curve cryptography) key > generati

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] RNG fixes

Hi Leigh, On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Leigh wrote: > > The issues I want to bring up for discussion are. > > * Replacing mt_rand() and rand() to a strong, modern RNG. > * Alternatively, fixing the current mt_rand() implementation to make it > standard > * Aliasing rand() to mt_rand() to impr

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types

On 06/14/2016 08:52 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote: > I'm personally against Union types because it makes no sense for classes, and > for scalars we're better off with dedicated solution a (e.g. "numeric"); Same reason I voted no. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe,