On Feb 5, 2015 7:58 AM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > Adding another concept, not changing the existing ones. And really,
> > it's just simplifying what is already present via is_()
> > runtime checks, making our lives a little bit easier.
>
> There's a very big difference between allo
hi,
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to discuss my "must have it in PHP 7" item.
>
> PHP RFC: script() and script_once()
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/script_and_script_once
>
> I have proposed similar RFC before.
> Optional PHP tags by php.ini and CLI o
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> True, but obviously, us who want strict typehints want to be able to do this:
>
> Obviously, but it doesn't mean whole language should be changed to serve
> one use case, especially the one that goes contrary to what happened in
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi Leigh,
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Leigh wrote:
>
>> On 5 February 2015 at 05:37, Adam Harvey wrote:
>> > I'm not totally clear on what this RFC is proposing, honestly. Is the
>> > new script statement meant to only include files t
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi Pierre and all,
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm proposing *SCRIPT* only inclusion. This can be done by
>> >
>> > - allowing &qu
On Feb 5, 2015 8:54 PM, "François Laupretre" wrote:
>
> De : Dmitry Stogov [mailto:dmi...@zend.com]
>
> > Yeah, this may work.
> > The only problem, that it looks not native and defines additional
language for constraints.
> > I don't talk it's wrong. Both approaches may make sense, but of course,
On Feb 5, 2015 3:17 PM, "Michael Wallner" wrote:
>
> Hi Stas!
>
> On 05/02/15 00:43, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >> Points explicitely marked for discussion in the RFC itself:
> >>
> >> * pecl/propro
> >> Proxies for properties representing state in internal C structs
> >> https://
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> I have to say I’m pretty disappointed at the opening of the vote.
> We had a pretty good RFC (thank you) for weak type hinting which was aligned
> with the spirit of PHP and everyone was able to rally around it.
> This has now been morphed int
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> PHP is just as safe than the other languages. PHP applicatons maybe
>> less, maybe more. I tend to see the amount of attacks as a proof of
>
On Feb 6, 2015 9:08 AM, "Yasuo Ohgaki" wrote:
>
> Hi Pierre,
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> I do not put high value in this ISO ;-)
>
>
> I am :) Almost all of my clients are ISMS or similar certified.
Marketing ;)
&
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> > I am :) Almost all of my clients are ISMS or similar certified.
>>
>> Marketing ;)
>>
>> >> However, ba
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> phpdoc is annotation as well, but to split it into specific attributes we
> have to write specialized parsers.
> Other languages support annotation or attributes that may be used more
> easily.
>
> http://docs.hhvm.com/manual/en/hack.attribut
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> This is just a brainstorming, and we are not going to provide a working
> solution tomorrow :)
> You have enough time :)
>
> I don't like phpdoc approach because we have to define, parse and compile
> new syntax for constraints.
> Would const
nnotations in
> sync with current internals.
We are, with the simplified syntax we discussed last time (have to dig
the archive)
> Cheers,
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>> > p
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> > Even if uploaded files are stored under non web root dir, attackers can
>> > use
>> > path
>> > traversal or even fu
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:14 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> Sorry, but you don't. Proposing a simple syntax is the same as not proposing
> it.
> We can do whatever syntax is proposed, but we need to discuss on how to
> handle inheritance, overriding, etc.
> None ever discuss
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> > With SElinux, we can restrict access. However, PHP should be able to
>> > read/write
>> > uploaded files. PHP just read and
On Feb 6, 2015 6:45 AM, "Rasmus Lerdorf" wrote:
>
> On Feb 5, 2015, at 17:41, "guilhermebla...@gmail.com" <
guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rasmus,
> >
> > Thanks for the highlight.
> > My biggest concern about all this breakage done for NG could somehow be
minimized by providing poss
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 9:57 AM, François Laupretre wrote:
>> De : Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
>> What do you think about the creation of an example extension covering
>> almost everything one would do in an extension?
>>
>> The class, methods or func
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:17 PM, François Laupretre wrote:
>> De : yohg...@gmail.com [mailto:yohg...@gmail.com] De la part de Yasuo Ohgaki
>
>> Personally, backward compatibility is not too important.
>> PHP5 is dead by PHP 7.2 release... This is the reason why.
>> It's only 3 years later, only 2 y
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Marcio Almada wrote:
> Hi,
>
> FYI, the RFC was simplified and updated with opinions gathered during
> discussion phase:
>
> RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/group_use_declarations
> Along with its pull request: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1005
>
> I'll start
On Feb 7, 2015 5:57 PM, "François Laupretre" wrote:
>
> > De : Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
> > Not sure it will help. It is really about showing cases for deref,
> > duplicate, convert, iterate, etc. The zpp, return values or
> > functions/cla
On Feb 7, 2015 5:01 PM, "Tony Marston" wrote:
>
> "Stelian Mocanita" wrote in message
news:CAMc0WS6+1Y-5yJW2s=mw+yns6tn8m5ieaxe10mwnlrl0_dz...@mail.gmail.com...
>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>>
>>> The folks who really want all this great strict typing should head
On Feb 7, 2015 6:46 PM, "Matteo Beccati" wrote:
>
> Hi Lars,
>
>
> On 07/02/2015 04:36, Lars Strojny wrote:
>>
>> My main concern is that the declare statement is
>> basically a better behaviour changing ini setting and PHPs history is
>> paved with those. I very much hope for scalar type hinting,
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 02/07/2015 05:03 PM, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
>> I'm wishing more and more that the RFC doesn't pass (even though I'd
>> LOVE to have typehints in PHP as a userland developer) and someone
>> else will make a better version of typehints RFC for
On Feb 8, 2015 10:52 AM, "Rasmus Lerdorf" wrote:
>
> On 02/07/2015 09:51 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> >> tan(1);
> >> echo strstr("test", "est", 1);
> >
> > Banning int->float and float->int is both a pain point and sometimes a
life-saver. It’s annoying that tan(1) doesn’t work. On the other hand, y
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> > Yes, the RFC is somewhat inaccurate in that respect. It is per-file in
>> > one sense (like encoding, but unlike ticks, it has no effect on the
>> > including or included files). However, it technically affect
On Feb 8, 2015 12:48 PM, "Yasuo Ohgaki" wrote:
>> 2. What's going to happen to mcrypt?
>>
>> I see the vote to excise it did not pass. Does this mean that (i.e.
>> imply that) PHP's plan is to keep a security lib that hasn't been
>> maintained for 8 years for the next 5+ years?
>
>
> Removed.
> A
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2015 12:48 PM, "Yasuo Ohgaki" wrote:
>>
>> >> 2. What's going to happen to mcrypt?
>> >>
&
On Feb 8, 2015 10:44 PM, "Tom Worster" wrote:
>
> Hi Yasuo, Pierre,
>
> Thank you both for the updates.
>
> I expect the vote to remove mcrypt can be shifted towards "yes" if some
> campaigning effort is made. I made a start in another thread.
>
> Assuming that mcrypt goes, as it should, we are le
hi,
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’m posting this in a new thread since people might (reasonably) be ignoring
> further responses to the [VOTE] thread.
>
> I’m considering a small change to the Scalar Type Hints RFC, specifically
> about syntax. Quite a few peo
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On 08/02/2015 20:33, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, while I think strict types - stricter than even strict languages -
>> don't belong in PHP, this syntax is clearly a step up from declare(),
>> which
>> was definitely not intended for this p
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> FWIW, while I think strict types - stricter than even strict languages -
> don't belong in PHP, this syntax is clearly a step up from declare(), which
> was definitely not intended for this purpose.
I think we get it, you do not like the grou
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> So, controversy is where a lot of people disagree - and there were
>> numerous
>> people in the original thread who disagreed with the RFC and preferred
>> strict
>> types. I actually tallied them in a reply to Zeev (which I later quoted in
>>
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Andrey Andreev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> There is a vote, you do not like the RFC or part of
>> it, vote no. But this constant attempt to get exactly what you want
>> and do almost every
hi,
Should we push json_parser.tab.c? Which is generated (re2c), just like
what is done in date or other?
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Feb 9, 2015 10:29 AM, "Yasuo Ohgaki" wrote:
>
> Hi Matt and all,
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Matt Parker
wrote:
>
> > The first question was 'Did you read the RFC' and the second 'Would
> > you like the RFC to
> > pass'. I set it up Friday morning (GMT) and tweeted it around a bit
> >
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Xinchen Hui wrote:
> Hey:
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> Should we push json_parser.tab.c? Which is generated (re2c), just like
>> what is done in date or other?
>>
> I think we sh
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
> Pierre Joye in php.internals (Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:40:21 +0700):
>>Should we push json_parser.tab.c? Which is generated (re2c), just like
>>what is done in date or other?
>
> Yes, you should. I ran into this problem when I
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> I actually have a question, that Ferenc touched on, but it never got any
> discussion.
>
> How, actually, the declare will work with concatenated PHP files? It's
> quite a common practice to put the files into packages, that require
> minimal
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> this is more or less true. :(
> The proposal is presented in an unfair way to include strict typing without
> the ability to vote for weak types only.
>
> Despite of semantic arguments, the implementation is a bit immature and
> introduces slo
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>> this is more or less true. :(
>> The proposal is presented in an unfair way to include strict typing without
>> the ability to vote for weak types only.
>>
>> Despite of semantic argument
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am not saying I want one or the other (I have voted and now only
>> focus on solving possible tech issues we may find) but trying to be
>> fair wit
On Feb 9, 2015 6:07 PM, "François Laupretre" wrote:
>
> > De : Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
> >
> > > However, DbC is coming close!
> > >
> > > DbC brings much more flexibility, strict/loose constraints,
performance,
> > >
On Feb 9, 2015 4:46 PM, "Jakub Zelenka" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Anatol Belski
wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, February 9, 2015 07:33, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>> > Hey:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
On Feb 9, 2015 8:52 PM, "Sebastian Bergmann" wrote:
>
> Am 07.02.2015 um 02:08 schrieb Sebastian Bergmann:
> > After reading your email, Nikita, I deleted my vote (it was no before).
> > I will review the RFC again, with your arguments (and others) in mind
> > and maybe I'll come to a different co
On Feb 10, 2015 12:03 AM, "Zeev Suraski" wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 12:44 PM
> > To: Zeev Suraski
> > Cc: Jordi Boggiano; internals@lists.php.net
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
> >
>
On Feb 10, 2015 1:22 AM, "Lars Strojny" wrote:
>
> Hi Matteo,
>
> sorry for the late response.
>
> > On 07 Feb 2015, at 12:46, Matteo Beccati wrote:
> >
> > Maybe it's just me, but I didn't quite understand the point you are
making here. Are you saying that declares are more or less like ini
sett
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Xinchen Hui wrote:
> why make this thing in this way complicated? why not just simply
> include the generated files as others did?
There are cases where it is configure dependent so not including them
makes sense.
I do not recognize this case with json.
--
Pi
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Some of you are tired with this topic, but please take a look the RFC
>
> [RFC] Script only includes - this is 3rd version.
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/script_only_include
>
> Please let me know what you like or dislike.
I said bef
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> If you measure performance impact using CPU performance counters (VTune,
> oprofile, perf) or even better CPU emulator (callgrind) you'll see slight
> degradation. It's also clear that it makes some degradation from code
> review. 1% differen
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Jordi Boggiano
>> wrote:
>> > On 09/02/2015 22:29, Anatol Belski wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ext/imap
>> >> ext/mcrypt
>> >> ext/pdo_dblib
>> >
On Feb 13, 2015 8:41 AM, "Andrea Faulds" wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> > On 13 Feb 2015, at 16:24, Nikita Popov wrote:
> >
> > I'm in favor of this RFC. Honestly I don't really understand the
negativity
> > it is getting around here.
> >
> > The ability to import multiple items from one namespace is a
> >
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> With that said, there's nothing stopping you from putting up your time to
>> create a competing proposal and patch. If you really believe that weak
>> types
>> are the better way forward, why not codify that? If only one of the RFCs
>> passes
Could you revive it in a new thread please? :)
On Feb 13, 2015 3:25 PM, "Nikita Popov" wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Nikita Popov
> wrote:
>
> > Hi internals!
> >
> > During the PHP 5.6 development cycle I have proposed an RFC [1] that
> > suggested the use of exceptions instead of f
On Feb 14, 2015 6:28 AM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > What would be the point of *allowing* returning a value? It's clearly
>
> It's an error only because you declared it an error.
>
> > an error. We could let you return anything and then discard it, but
> > now you won't spot the err
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 02/15/2015 05:45 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On 15 Feb 2015, at 12:39, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
Hi everyone,
I should’ve done this a long time ago, but I
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Leigh wrote:
> On 15 February 2015 at 13:51, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>> Extensions "that deal with numbers" are all going to need updating. So
>>> probably every extension?
>>
>> Anything accepting a zval rather than a long through zpp, but the changes
>> are quite
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> hi,
>
> During discussion of different ways of implementing "Design by Contract" we
> got an idea of using annotations.
Thanks a lot to push that forward!
> BTW: annotations are useful by their own and may be used for different
> purposes.
On Feb 16, 2015 10:56 AM, "Dmitry Stogov" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:42 PM, François Laupretre
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > >
> > > De : Arvids Godjuks [mailto:arvids.godj...@gmail.com]
> > >
> > > The 0.1 RFC version was mentioned a lot as a good compromise by many
> > > people
> > > and had
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Dennis Birkholz wrote:
> Am 17.02.2015 um 12:30 schrieb Leigh:
>> And you find taking authority over a library away from the library
>> author completely acceptable?
>>
>> If I write an API that works perfectly well in strict mode, why
>> shouldn't I be able to tur
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
>> On 02/17/2015 04:35 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>> > I don't buy into Rasmus arguments about internal functions. They concern
>> > one particular edge case (int->float coercion) and I do
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:24 PM
>> To: franc...@php.net
>> Cc: Lester Caine; internals@lists.php.net
>> Subject: [PHP-DEV] Using Other Channels (was
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 4:09 PM
>> To: Zeev Suraski
>> Cc: Anthony Ferrara; PHP internals
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-D
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> Morning internals,
>
> The expectations RFC is now in voting phase:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/expectations#vote
I totally miss the Expectation RFC announcement. Where the RFC was
actually proposed for discussions.
I have been following u
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Arvids Godjuks
wrote:
> I think this starts to go the route of putting things into absolute. Ideal
> things tend not to happen/work in the real world to the letter.
>
> Some things just don't work out by themselves. The Type Hinting RFC's are an
> anomaly in the r
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 4:52 PM
>> To: Zeev Suraski
>> Cc: PHP internals
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Using Other Ch
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Joe Watkins
>> wrote:
>> > Morning internals,
>> >
>> > The expectations RFC
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Joe Watkins
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 19/02/15 12:52, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>> Now that all made sense!
>>> >
>>> > My only grey area is 'allowing sensible ones' where the size is an
>>> > integral part
>>> > of what is 'sensible' ... the one where conventional strict typing use
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Leigh wrote:
> On 19 February 2015 at 15:45, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> Still, no announce for a discussion about this specific RFC. And
>> really, the content of the RFC is almost empty, pointing to the ML
>> archive is really not the right wa
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> While typing this I did think to just scrap what I was writing, but I
> think it is relevant if only if someone can explain why I am wrong?
>
> On 19/02/15 17:06, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
With strictly typed $a and $b, the expression drops
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Those of you with long memories will remember that I proposed a
> Comparable interface way back in the pre-5.4 days, but withdrew it
> when it became obvious that there was no consensus for it as a feature
> and that a vote was like
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:13 PM, François Laupretre wrote:
>> De : Pádraic Brady [mailto:padraic.br...@gmail.com]
>>
>> As I understand it, Andrea left her RFC free to be reused, reopened
>> and derived without any specific limitation. It would therefore appear
>> that it would be possible for the
hi Dmitry,
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Anthony Ferrara
> wrote:
>
>> Larry,
>>
>> > Anthony, can you expand here at all about the practical benefits of
>> > strong-typing for variable passing for the compiler? That seems to be
>> the
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
>> Morning internals,
>>
>> The expectations RFC is now in voting phase:
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/expectations#vote
>
> I totally miss the Expectatio
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
>> However I think it is pre
> mature to vote on as there was (sorry) not explicit discussions about
> it.
>
> I haven't heard that from anyone else, the RFC is plenty old.
>
>> A couple of things are unclear. See the numerous questions in this t
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
>> So it is fine to have one setting doing the exact same thing? Sorry, I
>> disagree. We know we need that in other areas. Like other recent RFCs,
>> we have solved them bottom-up. This one is no different.
>
> It's fine for an RFC to be focused
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
>> No, we did not
>
> Yes, we did, which you could have found out, if you were really bothered:
>
> https://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=138213285708117&w=2
You are kidding me here and I already answered to that:
2013-10-18 21:46:45
So no, it
On Feb 20, 2015 8:11 AM, "Andrey Andreev" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Andrey Andreev
wrote:
> >>
> >> Agree on 'double' though ... if we want to discourage its usage, we
> >> might even think of deprecating it.
> >
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> Hi Anthony,
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Anthony Ferrara
> wrote:
>>
>> Dmitry
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, F
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Markus Fischer wrote:
> On 20.02.15 18:55, Sara Golemon wrote:
>> Announcing this in its own thread:
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reserve_even_more_types_in_php_7
>>
>> This RFC acts as an addition to Levi's
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reserve_more_types_in_php_7 b
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Larry,
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Larry Garfield
> wrote:
>> On 02/20/2015 06:28 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>>
>>> Considering I'm not targetting 7 (I've updated the RFC to hint this), we
>>> can choose what to do later dependi
On Feb 21, 2015 2:08 AM, "Tony Marston" wrote:
>
> ""Nikita Nefedov"" wrote in message news:op.xuco5eutc9evq2@nikita-pc...
>
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:39:33 +0300, Tony Marston
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. Exceptions were originally invented to solve the
semipredicate problem which only exi
hi,
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> I’ve been working with François and several other people from internals@
> and the PHP community to create a single-mode Scalar Type Hints proposal.
>
>
>
> I think it’s the RFC is a bit premature and could benefit from a bit
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi Crypto,
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Crypto Compress <
> cryptocompr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> AssertionExceptions are not intended to be caught, they are intended to be
>>> seen, in a specific environment.
>>>
>>
>> Joe, your
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> [Resending with the correct Subject line :)]
>
> ---
>
> All,
>
>
>
> I’ve been working with François and several other people from internals@
> and the PHP community to create a single-mode Scalar Type Hints proposal.
>
>
>
> I think it’s the
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Pierre,
>
>> And finally, this RFC only proposes one solution, so competitive RFCs
>> are still required to actually represent alternatives.
>
> That is a good thing. it should only propose one solution. Making a
> single RFC proposing two
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Sorry for the previous prematurely sent email, looks like I found a new
> keyboard shortcut :)
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 8:12 PM
>> To: Zeev Sura
On Feb 21, 2015 2:02 PM, "Zeev Suraski" wrote:
> > I agree we should have users avoid explicit casts. That's why the
> > dual-mode
> > proposal exists. If users don't want to control their types, they should
> > use the
> > default mode. And everything works fine.
>
> This ignores the reasonable
On Feb 21, 2015 1:54 PM, "Yasuo Ohgaki" wrote:
>
> Hi Pierre,
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> > Assertion is only for development and testing.
>> > We need errors or exceptions during development and testing, but
>&
On Feb 21, 2015 4:29 PM, "François Laupretre" wrote:
>
> > De : Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
> > Saying that turning on an optional and previously unavailable option
inside
> > code causing code breaks is any way a " BC" break is pure FUD.
>
> Who talked of BC break for this ?
>
>
Can you all of you stop this madness with moving discussions off list?
It is detestable, against almost all openness and principles behind an oss
project like php. If we can't discuss anymore design, plans, ideas etc on
the list then we are doomed, for good.
On Feb 22, 2015 3:49 PM, "Anthony Ferra
hi Matthew,
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
wrote:
> I'm writing this as an author and maintainer of a framework and many
> libraries.
> Caveat, for those who aren't already aware: I work for Zend, and report to
> Zeev.
> If you feel that will make my points impartial,
On Feb 23, 2015 10:09 AM, "Zeev Suraski" wrote:
> > I agree if we can avoid an INI setting, but this will surely lead to a
> > Python 2/3
> > situation.
>
> I don't think it will. But instead of guessing, we should try the patch
> with some real world apps and find out. I think that if we find
On Feb 23, 2015 7:43 AM, "Zeev Suraski" wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:14 PM
> > To: Zeev Suraski
> > Cc: Joe Watkins; PHP internals
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] JIT (was RE: [PHP-DEV] Coercive Scal
On Feb 23, 2015 2:48 PM, "Rowan Collins" wrote:
>
> On 22 February 2015 23:56:18 GMT, Pierre Joye
wrote:
> >Can you all of you stop this madness with moving discussions off list?
> >
> >It is detestable, against almost all openness and principles behind an
>
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Thanks for testing, but it's a bit premature to jump to conclusions.
>
> First, disabling phar is in the patch instructions at
> github.com/php/php-src/pull/1110 - it's a bug in phar that needs to be
> fixed. We'll address it.
>
> Secondly,
It should use the session.entropy_file setting as it aims to be the exact
same thing. It also allows custom entropy src (better ones for higher
demands) as well.
On Feb 23, 2015 10:36 PM, "Sammy Kaye Powers" wrote:
> The RFC to add a user-land API for an easy-to-use and reliable CSPRNG in
> PHP i
On Feb 24, 2015 3:08 AM, "Leigh" wrote:
>
> On 24 February 2015 at 10:55, Pierre Joye wrote:
> > It should use the session.entropy_file setting as it aims to be the
exact
> > same thing. It also allows custom entropy src (better ones for higher
> > demands) a
1 - 100 of 3300 matches
Mail list logo
