On 19 March 2025 11:27:11 GMT, Edmond Dantes wrote:
>>
>> You're cheating again - you've put an extra pair of brackets around one
>> expression and not the other, and assumed they'll work differently, but
>that's
>> not the grammar you proposed.
>>
>
>Why am I cheating?
"Cheating" in the sense
On 17/03/2025 20:58, Máté Kocsis wrote:
Hi Ignace,
1) around `Uri\UninitializedUriException` If I look at the
behaviour of
`DatetimeImmutable` in the same scenario or a Userland object
instead of
throwing an exception an error is thrown
see:
- https://3v4l.org/d4Vr
On 19/03/2025 19:24, Edmond Dantes wrote:
> Yes, that would probably be a bad choice as well. Which is why I've
repeatedly suggested a different keyword, and AFAIK you still haven't
actually voiced an opinion on that.
Does this concern the syntax of `spawn block {}` or did I miss something?
First, side note: When I said "Tim" in my earlier messages, I was in fact
referring to Rowan. I do not know why I confused Tim and Rowan. My apologies
to both Tim and Rowan for the confusion.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025, at 2:26 AM, Edmond Dantes wrote:
> Hello, Larry.
>
>>
>> First off, it desperate
-- Forwarded message -
From: youkidearitai
Date: 2025年3月20日(木) 14:41
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Potential RFC: mb_rawurlencode() ?
To: Paul M. Jones
2025年3月19日(水) 2:52 Paul M. Jones :
>
> Hi all,
>
> The discussion around WHATWG-URL on this list, as well as my work
> coordinating U
>
> Generally, RFCs are for changes in the language itself, not for API
contracts in C. That can generally be handled in PRs, if I understand
correctly.
>
I thought this was handled by PHP INTERNAL.
So I have no idea how it actually works.
>
> or other weird shenanigans? I think it would be bet
Continuing the discussion from [[PHP-DEV] PHP True Async RFC - Stage 2](
https://discourse.thephp.foundation/t/php-dev-php-true-async-rfc-stage-2/1573/24
):
[quote="Rowan_Tommins_IMSoP, post:24, topic:1573"]
I'm still confused why you started talking about how to implement "defer".
Are you saying
On 19 March 2025 07:07:36 GMT, Edmond Dantes wrote:
>Continuing the discussion from [[PHP-DEV] PHP True Async RFC - Stage 2](
>https://discourse.thephp.foundation/t/php-dev-php-true-async-rfc-stage-2/1573/24
>):
>
>[quote="Rowan_Tommins_IMSoP, post:24, topic:1573"]
Just a quick reminder that
>
> P.S. + 1 example:
>
>
> declare(strict_types=1);
>
> use Async\Scope;
> use function Async\currentScope;
>
> function fetchUrl(string $url): string {
> $ctx = stream_context_create(['http' => ['timeout' => 5]]);
> return file_get_contents($url, false, $ctx);
> }
>
> function fetc
On 19.03.2025 12:51, Edmond Dantes wrote:
>
> or other weird shenanigans? I think it would be better as a statement.
>
Your example was absolutely convincing.
I have nothing to argue with :)
So, `suspend` is 100% an operator.
Please, don't use word operator in this context. It's a keyword,
>
> Please, don't use word operator in this context. It's a keyword,
> statement or language construct, but not operator. It's important
> especially when you write an RFC.
>
Thank you so much for paying attention to this!
>
> But even though we're talking in circles about why,
> your latest examples do avoid the particular problem I was trying to
describe.
>
I thought the problem was that the syntax wouldn't work. Is there any other
issue?
>
> Yes, that would probably be a bad choice as well. Which is why I've
rep
On 19.3.2025 16:04:06, Rob Landers wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025, at 03:37, Bob Weinand wrote:
Okay, I see the point with LSP. I'm not sure whether we need to
preserve LSP for that specific scenario, but neither can I say that
we should ignore it.
(Effectively implementing LSP would mean tha
>
> When even the official language documentation is telling you in ALL CAPS
to not use something, you automatically know it’s a major footgun which has
already been abused by newbies.
>
This is a compelling example of why you should not use the await
currentScope() construct. Thank you.
>
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025, at 03:37, Bob Weinand wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On 17.3.2025 19:58:39, Rob Landers wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025, at 19:05, Bob Weinand wrote:
> . The idea that extending the parent class doesnt no inherit the child
> classes doesnt make sense to me.
> As then if you e
Hey everyone,
The voting has just ended.
The #[\NoDiscard] attribute was accepted with 18 (Yes) to 4 (No) votes
(82%).
The (void) cast was accepted with 18 (Yes) to 2 (No) votes (90%).
Neither vote is a subset of the other, some voters only voted for the
#[\NoDiscard] attribute itself and some on
Hi Maté,
> On Mar 18, 2025, at 15:15, Máté Kocsis wrote:
>
> There's no way I would have written an implementation from scratch. I'm using
> the url module of the Lexbor C library (https://github.com/lexbor/lexbor/)
> for handling WHATWG URLs. It's already bundled in core, and it's also batt
17 matches
Mail list logo
