Hi all,
I'm still not convinced everyone on this thread is actually talking
about the same idea.
For instance, on whether an experimental feature would require the same
consensus as a non-experimental one:
On 11/10/2022 00:06, Mike Schinkel wrote:
If there were an RFC for Experimental Use
Am 11.10.2022 um 07:09 schrieb MKS Archive :
>> On Oct 10, 2022, at 8:04 PM, David Gebler wrote:
>>
>> This is what's bothering me. Either these "experimental" features have
>> passed RFC and will be part of the language, as you've said above, or
>> they're actually experimental i.e. not finalize
On 10/6/2022 1:19 AM, Rowan Tommins wrote:
On 05/10/2022 22:35, David Gebler wrote:
There are multiple RFC standards for email address format but AFAIK
PHP's FILTER_SANITIZE_EMAIL doesn't conform to any of them.
FILTER_SANITIZE_EMAIL is a very short list of characters which claims to
be based
Hi all,
On Sat, 1 Oct 2022, Kamil Tekiela wrote:
> For quite some time now, PHP's sanitize filters have "Rustled My
> Jimmies". These filters bother me because I can't really justify their
> existence. I can understand that a few of them are sensible and may
> come in handy, but I would like t
> On 11 Oct 2022, at 15:24, Christian Schneider wrote:
>
> We seem to have two different views on experimental feature here: You are
> saying they could get removed again while others stated it is for stuff which
> will definitely end up in stable when the next major release is done.
An exper
> On Oct 11, 2022, at 8:24 AM, Christian Schneider
> wrote:
>
> We seem to have two different views on experimental feature here: You are
> saying they could get removed again while others stated it is for stuff which
> will definitely end up in stable when the next major release is done.
>
>
In order to try to organize a little better the original purpose of the
discussion I started, I decided to "rename" this subject to something
closer to the purpose. From "experimental features" to "feature preview".
Original thread: https://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=166491585711553
These are m
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022, at 3:25 PM, David Rodrigues wrote:
> In order to try to organize a little better the original purpose of the
> discussion I started, I decided to "rename" this subject to something
> closer to the purpose. From "experimental features" to "feature preview".
>
> Original thread:
Nice example!
> You're saying that "public private(set)" would become available in 8.2.1
(the late-December release of 8.2), but only in files that have
"declare(asymmetric_visibility=1);" at the top.
Yes. In that case, I should suggest declare(preview_asymmetric_visibility =
1), just to make cle
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022, at 8:43 PM, David Rodrigues wrote:
> Nice example!
>
>> You're saying that "public private(set)" would become available in 8.2.1
> (the late-December release of 8.2), but only in files that have
> "declare(asymmetric_visibility=1);" at the top.
>
> Yes. In that case, I should
>From what I understand, your concern is "what if we need to change the
direction of something already decided"? For example, initially it was
decided and very well accepted private(set), but after a while the idea was
revised and it was decided that private:set would be better instead.
In this ca
11 matches
Mail list logo
