FAQ
Hi:
This feature introduces list() support in foreach constructs(more
info can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/foreachlist).

this could make the grammar more consistent, see following example:

<?php
$users = array(
array('Foo', 'Bar'),
array('Baz', 'Qux');
);

// Before
foreach ($users as $user) {
list($firstName, $lastName) = $user;
echo "First name: $firstName, last name: $lastName. ";
}

// After
foreach ($users as list($firstName, $lastName)) {
echo "First name: $firstName, last name: $lastName. ";
}
?>

previous discussion could be found at :
http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=134277050215818&w=2

please vote for this: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/foreachlist#vote

thanks :)

--
Laruence Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/

Search Discussions

  • Nikita Popov at Aug 18, 2012 at 9:48 am

    On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Laruence wrote:
    Hi:
    This feature introduces list() support in foreach constructs(more
    info can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/foreachlist).

    please vote for this: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/foreachlist#vote
    Hi Lauruence!

    Is this vote just for list() or also for error suppression? I'd vote
    +1 on the first, but -1 on the second, so it would be nice to make it
    more clear ;)

    Nikita
  • Laruence at Aug 19, 2012 at 6:07 am

    On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
    On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Laruence wrote:
    Hi:
    This feature introduces list() support in foreach constructs(more
    info can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/foreachlist).

    please vote for this: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/foreachlist#vote
    Hi Lauruence!

    Is this vote just for list() or also for error suppression? I'd vote
    +1 on the first, but -1 on the second, so it would be nice to make it
    more clear ;)
    Hi,

    okey, I opened another vote for the foreach list with silent token
    supporting.

    thanks
    Nikita


    --
    Laruence Xinchen Hui
    http://www.laruence.com/
  • Sherif Ramadan at Aug 20, 2012 at 6:36 am

    On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Laruence wrote:
    On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
    On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Laruence wrote:
    Hi:
    This feature introduces list() support in foreach constructs(more
    info can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/foreachlist).

    please vote for this: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/foreachlist#vote
    Hi Lauruence!

    Is this vote just for list() or also for error suppression? I'd vote
    +1 on the first, but -1 on the second, so it would be nice to make it
    more clear ;)
    Hi,

    okey, I opened another vote for the foreach list with silent token
    supporting.

    thanks
    Nikita

    Sorry, I feel like I missed the discussion phase of this RFC. I'm
    unclear about how this behavior in the construct will affect existing
    code. Currently, you can only use list() with arrays that have
    sequential numeric keys starting from 0. So the follow does not
    currently work with the list construct...

    list($x, $y) = array('x'=>1, 'y'=>2); // This won't work

    /* This won't work either.. at least not the way I'd expect because $y
    will end up being 1 and $x will be null and an E_NOTICE level error is
    thrown. */
    list($x, $y) = array(1=>1, 2=>2);
    var_dump($x, $y);
    /*
    NULL
    int(1)
    */

    While I see the use of the list construct as a minor improvement in
    readability (it does add some syntactic sugar), I also can't imagine
    that it makes things any more consistent, which is one of the points
    of this RFC.

    This also means that if we chose to avoid this extra level of
    indirection by way of list in foreach constructs we can't expect to
    access the key, which might make for another ambiguity and lead us
    back to just using something like the following...

    $array = array(
    'Cape Cod' => array('lat' => 12.20, 'long' => 34.60),
    'North Shore' => array('lat' => 18.72, 'long' => 4.11),
    'Mount Erie' => array('lat' => 6.02, 'long' => 21.79),
    );
    foreach ($array as $point => $coordinates) {
    $lat = $coordinates['lat'];
    $long = $coordinates['long'];
    echo "Coordinates for $point are: LAT = $lat, LONG = $long\n";
    }

    I understand we can simply say this would not be an ideal use case for
    this, but then it becomes a tiny variation in syntax that only solves
    a specific problem.
  • Laruence at Aug 25, 2012 at 12:34 pm
    Hi:
    Voting closed.

    Result:
    foreach supports list syntax: 11 for yes, 4 for no. accepted.
    foreach supports list with silent token: 2 for yes, 10 for no. denied.

    thanks for your great advise.

    I will commit the patch later.

    thanks
    On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Laruence wrote:
    Hi:
    This feature introduces list() support in foreach constructs(more
    info can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/foreachlist).

    this could make the grammar more consistent, see following example:

    <?php
    $users = array(
    array('Foo', 'Bar'),
    array('Baz', 'Qux');
    );

    // Before
    foreach ($users as $user) {
    list($firstName, $lastName) = $user;
    echo "First name: $firstName, last name: $lastName. ";
    }

    // After
    foreach ($users as list($firstName, $lastName)) {
    echo "First name: $firstName, last name: $lastName. ";
    }
    ?>

    previous discussion could be found at :
    http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=134277050215818&w=2

    please vote for this: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/foreachlist#vote

    thanks :)

    --
    Laruence Xinchen Hui
    http://www.laruence.com/


    --
    Laruence Xinchen Hui
    http://www.laruence.com/
  • Andrew Faulds at Aug 25, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    On 25/08/12 13:33, Laruence wrote:
    Hi:
    Voting closed.

    Result:
    foreach supports list syntax: 11 for yes, 4 for no. accepted.
    foreach supports list with silent token: 2 for yes, 10 for no. denied.

    thanks for your great advise.

    I will commit the patch later.

    thanks
    On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Laruence wrote:
    Hi:
    This feature introduces list() support in foreach constructs(more
    info can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/foreachlist).

    this could make the grammar more consistent, see following example:

    <?php
    $users = array(
    array('Foo', 'Bar'),
    array('Baz', 'Qux');
    );

    // Before
    foreach ($users as $user) {
    list($firstName, $lastName) = $user;
    echo "First name: $firstName, last name: $lastName. ";
    }

    // After
    foreach ($users as list($firstName, $lastName)) {
    echo "First name: $firstName, last name: $lastName. ";
    }
    ?>

    previous discussion could be found at :
    http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=134277050215818&w=2

    please vote for this: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/foreachlist#vote

    thanks :)

    --
    Laruence Xinchen Hui
    http://www.laruence.com/
    Great, now I can do in PHP what I've been able to do in Python for
    years, but with uglier syntax! :P

    --
    Andrew Faulds
    http://ajf.me/
  • Stas Malyshev at Aug 26, 2012 at 5:42 pm
    Hi!
    foreach supports list syntax: 11 for yes, 4 for no. accepted.
    foreach supports list with silent token: 2 for yes, 10 for no. denied.
    And here's again the problem with this voting setup. With all these long
    discussions about people not getting votes we have 15 people that
    bothered to vote at all, and essentially the vote is decided by one or
    two single votes, and the vote doesn't even have to be from a PHP
    contributor - but the vote of anybody who can register on PHP wiki is
    enough to decide questions on the core of the language. And I'm not
    talking about "the voice of the masses" there but by a single vote of
    anybody who bothers to vote, which 99% of people just do not.

    I do not this it is a healthy state of things. Sorry to raise the topic
    that was discussed 1000 times before, but the situation does not seem to
    improve.
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Yahav Gindi Bar at Aug 26, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:

    Hi!
    foreach supports list syntax: 11 for yes, 4 for no. accepted.
    foreach supports list with silent token: 2 for yes, 10 for no.
    denied.

    And here's again the problem with this voting setup. With all these long
    discussions about people not getting votes we have 15 people that
    bothered to vote at all, and essentially the vote is decided by one or
    two single votes, and the vote doesn't even have to be from a PHP
    contributor - but the vote of anybody who can register on PHP wiki is
    enough to decide questions on the core of the language. And I'm not
    talking about "the voice of the masses" there but by a single vote of
    anybody who bothers to vote, which 99% of people just do not.

    I do not this it is a healthy state of things. Sorry to raise the topic
    that was discussed 1000 times before, but the situation does not seem to
    improve.
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
    I got a PHP Wiki account but couldn't vote. Are you sure the Wiki accounts
    got the permissions to vote?
  • Stas Malyshev at Aug 26, 2012 at 5:48 pm
    Hi!

    I got a PHP Wiki account but couldn't vote. Are you sure the Wiki
    accounts got the permissions to vote?
    Hm... Not sure, maybe somebody has to enable it?
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Peter Cowburn at Aug 26, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    On 26 August 2012 18:48, Stas Malyshev wrote:
    I got a PHP Wiki account but couldn't vote. Are you sure the Wiki
    accounts got the permissions to vote?
    Hm... Not sure, maybe somebody has to enable it?
    There is a special group ("voting" IIRC) for wiki accounts with voting
    rights. "Ordinary" (non-php.net) wiki account holders cannot vote.
    Someone with DB access would need to check, but I believe there are
    (were) only a couple of people in this special voting group.
  • Hannes Magnusson at Aug 27, 2012 at 9:46 am

    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Peter Cowburn wrote:
    On 26 August 2012 18:48, Stas Malyshev wrote:

    I got a PHP Wiki account but couldn't vote. Are you sure the Wiki
    accounts got the permissions to vote?
    Hm... Not sure, maybe somebody has to enable it?
    There is a special group ("voting" IIRC) for wiki accounts with voting
    rights. "Ordinary" (non-php.net) wiki account holders cannot vote.
    Someone with DB access would need to check, but I believe there are
    (were) only a couple of people in this special voting group.
    There are 1651 persons with php.net VCS account. There is however no
    way to tell how active they are.
    There are 2 people with specific voting karma, I think Pierre demanded
    they got karma.

    Noone else can vote. That should be obvious by looking up the names of
    the voters on http://people.php.net.

    And why is this discussion buried in a foreach() voting announcement thread?

    -Hannes
  • Nikita Popov at Aug 26, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
    Hi!
    foreach supports list syntax: 11 for yes, 4 for no. accepted.
    foreach supports list with silent token: 2 for yes, 10 for no. denied.
    And here's again the problem with this voting setup. With all these long
    discussions about people not getting votes we have 15 people that
    bothered to vote at all, and essentially the vote is decided by one or
    two single votes, and the vote doesn't even have to be from a PHP
    contributor - but the vote of anybody who can register on PHP wiki is
    enough to decide questions on the core of the language. And I'm not
    talking about "the voice of the masses" there but by a single vote of
    anybody who bothers to vote, which 99% of people just do not.
    Only people with a VCS account (or voting group) can vote.

    Nikita
  • Stas Malyshev at Aug 26, 2012 at 5:58 pm
    Hi!
    Only people with a VCS account (or voting group) can vote.
    OK, I stand corrected then, but participation rate is still awfully low.
    We can't talk about consensus when everything is decided on one vote.

    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Will Fitch at Aug 26, 2012 at 6:01 pm
    Maybe the simplest solution is we have a minimum participation rate before
    voting can be closed?
    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:

    Hi!
    Only people with a VCS account (or voting group) can vote.
    OK, I stand corrected then, but participation rate is still awfully low.
    We can't talk about consensus when everything is decided on one vote.

    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
  • Yahav Gindi Bar at Aug 26, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Will Fitch wrote:

    Maybe the simplest solution is we have a minimum participation rate before
    voting can be closed?

    Though it make sense - it's a problem, because it'll delay and reject some
    useful features because of requirements issue.

    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com
    wrote:
    Hi!
    Only people with a VCS account (or voting group) can vote.
    OK, I stand corrected then, but participation rate is still awfully low.
    We can't talk about consensus when everything is decided on one vote.
    +1
    But giving vote for anybody is kind of bad idea too... so its a problem
  • Lester Caine at Aug 26, 2012 at 7:20 pm

    Yahav Gindi Bar wrote:
    OK, I stand corrected then, but participation rate is still awfully low.
    We can't talk about consensus when everything is decided on one vote.
    +1
    But giving vote for anybody is kind of bad idea too... so its a problem
    Currently how many people ARE entitled to vote anyway?
    And how many of those have been active in the last year?

    ( And how many here would like to be able to vote? )

    --
    Lester Caine - G8HFL
    -----------------------------
    Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
    L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
    EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
    Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
    Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
  • Yahav Gindi Bar at Aug 26, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Lester Caine wrote:

    Yahav Gindi Bar wrote:
    OK, I stand corrected then, but participation rate is still awfully low.
    We can't talk about consensus when everything is decided on one vote.
    +1
    But giving vote for anybody is kind of bad idea too... so its a problem
    Currently how many people ARE entitled to vote anyway?
    And how many of those have been active in the last year?

    ( And how many here would like to be able to vote? )

    --
    Lester Caine - G8HFL
    -----------------------------
    Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=**contact<http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact>
    L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
    EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
    Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
    Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.**uk<http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk>




    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
    From the recent voting, the average participates is 10...
    https://wiki.php.net/rfc/foreachlist
    https://wiki.php.net/rfc/apxs-loadmodule/results
    https://wiki.php.net/rfc/datetime_and_daylight_saving_time/vote
    https://wiki.php.net/rfc/finally
    https://wiki.php.net/rfc/constdereference


    I'd like! ;).
    (Though I've joined the group only month or two ago...)
  • Johannes Schlüter at Aug 28, 2012 at 12:21 am

    On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 21:07 +0300, Yahav Gindi Bar wrote:
    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Will Fitch wrote:

    Maybe the simplest solution is we have a minimum participation rate before
    voting can be closed?
    Though it make sense - it's a problem, because it'll delay and reject some
    useful features because of requirements issue.
    If it is useful it should have enough supporters, else it most likely
    isn't useful. While there should be an option to actively abstain from
    voting.

    johannes
  • Pierre Joye at Aug 28, 2012 at 8:18 am
    hi,

    On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Johannes Schlüter
    wrote:
    On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 21:07 +0300, Yahav Gindi Bar wrote:
    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Will Fitch wrote:

    Maybe the simplest solution is we have a minimum participation rate before
    voting can be closed?
    Though it make sense - it's a problem, because it'll delay and reject some
    useful features because of requirements issue.
    If it is useful it should have enough supporters, else it most likely
    isn't useful. While there should be an option to actively abstain from
    voting.
    I am not sure the usefulness of this option, but it is possible to add
    a blank field ot any vote.

    If the idea is to say 'I do not care enough to vote yes or no' then
    simply vote no as one obviously either did not the RFC or do not want
    it.

    But this is off topic again in this thread, what's about creating a
    separate one if you feel like we need to refine this process?

    Cheers,
  • Will Fitch at Aug 28, 2012 at 5:07 pm
    I just noticed the RFC is listed in the Accepted category. Did something
    change with the 2/3rds voting requirement? Right now, it stands at 64% Yes.
    On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:

    hi,

    On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Johannes Schlüter
    wrote:
    On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 21:07 +0300, Yahav Gindi Bar wrote:
    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Will Fitch wrote:

    Maybe the simplest solution is we have a minimum participation rate
    before
    voting can be closed?
    Though it make sense - it's a problem, because it'll delay and reject
    some
    useful features because of requirements issue.
    If it is useful it should have enough supporters, else it most likely
    isn't useful. While there should be an option to actively abstain from
    voting.
    I am not sure the usefulness of this option, but it is possible to add
    a blank field ot any vote.

    If the idea is to say 'I do not care enough to vote yes or no' then
    simply vote no as one obviously either did not the RFC or do not want
    it.

    But this is off topic again in this thread, what's about creating a
    separate one if you feel like we need to refine this process?

    Cheers,
    --
    Pierre

    @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
  • Andrew Faulds at Aug 28, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    On 28/08/12 18:07, Will Fitch wrote:
    I just noticed the RFC is listed in the Accepted category. Did something
    change with the 2/3rds voting requirement? Right now, it stands at 64% Yes.
    I think some naughty folks might have snuck votes in after voting was
    over. It was certainly >64% when accepted.

    --
    Andrew Faulds
    http://ajf.me/
  • Andrew Faulds at Aug 28, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    On 28/08/12 18:07, Will Fitch wrote:
    I just noticed the RFC is listed in the Accepted category. Did something
    change with the 2/3rds voting requirement? Right now, it stands at 64% Yes.
    Sorry, disregard that previous email. I didn't look at the vote before
    sending it.

    If you look at the vote at the moment, it's 11 to 4, or 11/15. That is
    above 2/3rds, which is 10/15.

    --
    Andrew Faulds
    http://ajf.me/
  • Will Fitch at Aug 28, 2012 at 5:14 pm
    You're right. My apologies.
    On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Andrew Faulds wrote:
    On 28/08/12 18:07, Will Fitch wrote:

    I just noticed the RFC is listed in the Accepted category. Did something
    change with the 2/3rds voting requirement? Right now, it stands at 64%
    Yes.
    Sorry, disregard that previous email. I didn't look at the vote before
    sending it.

    If you look at the vote at the moment, it's 11 to 4, or 11/15. That is
    above 2/3rds, which is 10/15.


    --
    Andrew Faulds
    http://ajf.me/
  • Andrew Faulds at Aug 28, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    On 28/08/12 18:14, Will Fitch wrote:
    You're right. My apologies.
    Good, I was a little worried that I might have missed something you
    didn't. It's all well and good.

    --
    Andrew Faulds
    http://ajf.me/
  • Yasuo Ohgaki at Aug 27, 2012 at 1:43 am

    2012/8/27 Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>:
    Hi!
    Only people with a VCS account (or voting group) can vote.
    OK, I stand corrected then, but participation rate is still awfully low.
    We can't talk about consensus when everything is decided on one vote.
    How about send notification emails and if one didn't participate
    any vote more than 3 years, then revoke karma.
    If 3 years are too short, make it 4 or 5 years.

    Obsolete accounts can be cleaned with this method.
    Just an idea.

    Regards,

    --
    Yasuo Ohgaki
    yohgaki@ohgaki.net
  • Laruence at Aug 27, 2012 at 2:38 pm
    Hi:
    sorry to replying top.

    this is really a minor features, so few people are interesting in
    this. thus fewer people will vote for it.

    if people interesting in the RFC, he will vote. so I think it's okey..

    thanks
    On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
    Hi!
    foreach supports list syntax: 11 for yes, 4 for no. accepted.
    foreach supports list with silent token: 2 for yes, 10 for no. denied.
    And here's again the problem with this voting setup. With all these long
    discussions about people not getting votes we have 15 people that
    bothered to vote at all, and essentially the vote is decided by one or
    two single votes, and the vote doesn't even have to be from a PHP
    contributor - but the vote of anybody who can register on PHP wiki is
    enough to decide questions on the core of the language. And I'm not
    talking about "the voice of the masses" there but by a single vote of
    anybody who bothers to vote, which 99% of people just do not.

    I do not this it is a healthy state of things. Sorry to raise the topic
    that was discussed 1000 times before, but the situation does not seem to
    improve.
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227


    --
    Laruence Xinchen Hui
    http://www.laruence.com/
  • Pierre Joye at Aug 27, 2012 at 11:06 pm

    On Aug 26, 2012 7:42 PM, "Stas Malyshev" wrote:
    Hi!
    foreach supports list syntax: 11 for yes, 4 for no. accepted.
    foreach supports list with silent token: 2 for yes, 10 for no. denied.
    And here's again the problem with this voting setup. With all these long
    discussions about people not getting votes we have 15 people that
    bothered to vote at all, and essentially the vote is decided by one or
    two single votes, and the vote doesn't even have to be from a PHP
    contributor - but the vote of anybody who can register on PHP wiki is
    enough to decide questions
    No. One has to get the vote/rfc karma. If that has changed, we have
    you restore this restriction.


    anybody who bothers to vote, which 99% of people just do not.

    If one does not participate, his fault.


    Btw, we also have the 2/3 rule for language change as well.

    Cheers,
    Pierre
  • Andrew Faulds at Aug 26, 2012 at 6:10 pm
    They don't, you need voting karma too, having rfc karma isn't enough.

    And this is how democracy works, Stas. If voters don't bother to turn up, too bad.


    --
    Sent from Samsung Mobile
    Andrew Faulds
    http://ajf.me/

    Yahav Gindi Bar wrote:
    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:

    Hi!
    foreach supports list syntax:  11 for yes,  4 for no.   accepted.
    foreach supports list with silent token:  2 for yes, 10 for no.
    denied.

    And here's again the problem with this voting setup. With all these long
    discussions about people not getting votes we have 15 people that
    bothered to vote at all, and essentially the vote is decided by one or
    two single votes, and the vote doesn't even have to be from a PHP
    contributor - but the vote of anybody who can register on PHP wiki is
    enough to decide questions on the core of the language. And I'm not
    talking about "the voice of the masses" there but by a single vote of
    anybody who bothers to vote, which 99% of people just do not.

    I do not this it is a healthy state of things. Sorry to raise the topic
    that was discussed 1000 times before, but the situation does not seem to
    improve.
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
    I got a PHP Wiki account but couldn't vote. Are you sure the Wiki accounts
    got the permissions to vote?
  • Yahav Gindi Bar at Aug 26, 2012 at 6:14 pm

    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Andrew Faulds wrote:

    They don't, you need voting karma too, having rfc karma isn't enough.

    Just what I thought, but because he said that wiki account should have the
    kama I've brought this up.
    Personally, I think it's good and really make sense~

    And this is how democracy works, Stas. If voters don't bother to turn up,
    too bad.

    Yes, but even in democracy there's a minimum votes rate... I don't think
    that core decision should be done using 15 votes...


    --
    Sent from Samsung Mobile
    Andrew Faulds
    http://ajf.me/



    Yahav Gindi Bar wrote:


    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com
    wrote:
    Hi!
    foreach supports list syntax: 11 for yes, 4 for no. accepted.
    foreach supports list with silent token: 2 for yes, 10 for no.
    denied.

    And here's again the problem with this voting setup. With all these long
    discussions about people not getting votes we have 15 people that
    bothered to vote at all, and essentially the vote is decided by one or
    two single votes, and the vote doesn't even have to be from a PHP
    contributor - but the vote of anybody who can register on PHP wiki is
    enough to decide questions on the core of the language. And I'm not
    talking about "the voice of the masses" there but by a single vote of
    anybody who bothers to vote, which 99% of people just do not.

    I do not this it is a healthy state of things. Sorry to raise the topic
    that was discussed 1000 times before, but the situation does not seem to
    improve.
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
    I got a PHP Wiki account but couldn't vote. Are you sure the Wiki accounts
    got the permissions to vote?
  • Stas Malyshev at Aug 26, 2012 at 6:20 pm
    Hi!
    And this is how democracy works, Stas. If voters don't bother to turn
    up, too bad.
    Putting aside the fact that democracy has very little to do with what
    we're trying to do here (we're not government, we're opensource
    project), that's how democracy *doesn't work*. As you noticed, it is
    "too bad", and it is exactly the problem we're having - without
    participation, votes are decided by a random sample of whoever bothered
    to appear, often on a single vote.
    This is not a way to build consensus. It is a very unhealthy state of
    things, and it only contributes to the image of PHP as a project having
    no direction, no governance and basically existing in a state of
    brownian motion. I thought we were trying to shed this image.
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Peter Cowburn at Aug 26, 2012 at 6:30 pm

    On 26 August 2012 19:20, Stas Malyshev wrote:
    Putting aside the fact that democracy has very little to do with what
    we're trying to do here (we're not government, we're opensource
    project), that's how democracy *doesn't work*. As you noticed, it is
    "too bad", and it is exactly the problem we're having - without
    participation, votes are decided by a random sample of whoever bothered
    to appear, often on a single vote.
    This is not a way to build consensus. It is a very unhealthy state of
    things, and it only contributes to the image of PHP as a project having
    no direction, no governance and basically existing in a state of
    brownian motion. I thought we were trying to shed this image.

    For what it's worth, I have been following the RFC and internals
    threads on this topic and even after all that still have no strong
    opinion one way or the other. If there was an "on the fence" option in
    the polls, I would have chosen that. I did not toss a coin and choose
    one or the other purely because when there are so few votes, every one
    is significant — lets let those who feel they have put the time and
    effort* into coming to a conclusion have their say. (* lets hope
    that's the case anyway)
  • Gustavo Lopes at Aug 26, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:20:41 +0200, Stas Malyshev wrote:

    Putting aside the fact that democracy has very little to do with what
    we're trying to do here (we're not government, we're opensource
    project), that's how democracy *doesn't work*. As you noticed, it is
    "too bad", and it is exactly the problem we're having - without
    participation, votes are decided by a random sample of whoever bothered
    to appear, often on a single vote.
    This is not a way to build consensus. It is a very unhealthy state of
    things, and it only contributes to the image of PHP as a project having
    no direction, no governance and basically existing in a state of
    brownian motion. I thought we were trying to shed this image.
    I honestly don't see what the problem is. If the sample is indeed random,
    there's no bias as to what the voters as whole would do, tough for close
    votes or for votes where very few people vote the result could differ.

    But most importantly, I would prefer that the people voting actually
    thought hard about the proposal. And it's more likely (I think) that
    people who invested time in that process and in the discussion actually
    voted. So this way we get more knowledgeable voters on average than if,
    say, 90% of the people voted (because a large part of the voting
    population doesn't care about many of the proposals).

    In fact, I think that in this model, we still get a lot of people that
    vote without a clue; a model with an elected committee could make more
    sense.

    --
    Gustavo Lopes
  • Stas Malyshev at Aug 26, 2012 at 8:27 pm
    Hi!
    I honestly don't see what the problem is. If the sample is indeed random,
    there's no bias as to what the voters as whole would do, tough for close
    votes or for votes where very few people vote the result could differ.
    The problem is that this is not consensus, this is apathy and
    disfunction. If out of 100 or 1000 or whatever we have project
    participants we can barely find a dozen that want to support a
    particular change - can we really say this change has the support of the
    developer community?
    But most importantly, I would prefer that the people voting actually
    thought hard about the proposal. And it's more likely (I think) that
    I'd prefer that too. That's another problem with votes which I did talk
    about in the past too. However, right now we do not have any guarantee
    that those 10 people that voted are those that thought hard about the
    proposal, and not just saw it first time yesterday and thought "neat,
    let's do it, I'll spend as much time on it as it takes to click 'yes'
    button". I want to emphasize here I don't mean anybody in particular
    that would do that (I hope nobody does), I am just saying we do not have
    any way of knowing that, so if you're concerned about that current
    situation is not ideal.
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Kris Craig at Aug 27, 2012 at 1:18 am

    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:

    Hi!
    I honestly don't see what the problem is. If the sample is indeed random,
    there's no bias as to what the voters as whole would do, tough for close
    votes or for votes where very few people vote the result could differ.
    The problem is that this is not consensus, this is apathy and
    disfunction. If out of 100 or 1000 or whatever we have project
    participants we can barely find a dozen that want to support a
    particular change - can we really say this change has the support of the
    developer community?
    But most importantly, I would prefer that the people voting actually
    thought hard about the proposal. And it's more likely (I think) that
    I'd prefer that too. That's another problem with votes which I did talk
    about in the past too. However, right now we do not have any guarantee
    that those 10 people that voted are those that thought hard about the
    proposal, and not just saw it first time yesterday and thought "neat,
    let's do it, I'll spend as much time on it as it takes to click 'yes'
    button". I want to emphasize here I don't mean anybody in particular
    that would do that (I hope nobody does), I am just saying we do not have
    any way of knowing that, so if you're concerned about that current
    situation is not ideal.
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
    I agree that can be a problem. However, I'm not sure what a viable
    solution would be. After all, Democracy or not, lack of participation can
    be crippling to a project. The obvious answer would be to increase
    participation somehow, but that's much easier said than done. It's even
    worse for us since PHP is written in C, which makes the learning curve for
    potential new contributors intimidatingly (and perhaps even prohibitively)
    steep. Short of killing ourselves rewriting it in C++, I'm not sure there
    is an ideal solution to this problem.

    --Kris
  • Rasmus Lerdorf at Aug 27, 2012 at 1:22 am

    On 08/26/2012 06:18 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
    Short of killing ourselves rewriting it in C++, I'm not sure there
    is an ideal solution to this problem.
    Because you think more people can grok C++ than C? That's not my
    experience. C is essentially a subset of C++. Any strong C++ developer
    (I think I have only ever met 2 of those) will know C inside out.

    -Rasmus
  • Kris Craig at Aug 27, 2012 at 1:34 am

    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
    On 08/26/2012 06:18 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
    Short of killing ourselves rewriting it in C++, I'm not sure there
    is an ideal solution to this problem.
    Because you think more people can grok C++ than C? That's not my
    experience. C is essentially a subset of C++. Any strong C++ developer
    (I think I have only ever met 2 of those) will know C inside out.
    I agree. But keyword there is "strong" lol. In terms of volume, I've
    noticed there are far more C++ and C# developers out there who don't know a
    lick of C. Makes sense if you think about it, as both are designed to make
    the job easier, which in turn also reduces the learning curve. When I
    browse through local college offerings in programming, it's not uncommon
    for me to see C++ emphasized with no mention of C. I've always likened it
    to learning to drive on an automatic transmission, whereas learning in C is
    like learning to drive a stick. It's harder and most people don't do it
    anymore, even though it's far more beneficial in the long-run.

    I guess the premise I was alluding to was that, if PHP was written in C++,
    there would be a much larger *quantity* of developers with a compatible
    skillset. You're right in that most of them would almost certainly be
    lacking in quality, but it would theoretically increase participation
    nonetheless IMNSHO. ;)

    --Kris

    -Rasmus
  • Rasmus Lerdorf at Aug 27, 2012 at 1:40 am

    On 08/26/2012 06:34 PM, Kris Craig wrote:


    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
    On 08/26/2012 06:18 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
    Short of killing ourselves rewriting it in C++, I'm not sure there
    is an ideal solution to this problem.
    Because you think more people can grok C++ than C? That's not my
    experience. C is essentially a subset of C++. Any strong C++ developer
    (I think I have only ever met 2 of those) will know C inside out.


    I agree. But keyword there is "strong" lol. In terms of volume, I've
    noticed there are far more C++ and C# developers out there who don't
    know a lick of C. Makes sense if you think about it, as both are
    designed to make the job easier, which in turn also reduces the learning
    curve. When I browse through local college offerings in programming,
    it's not uncommon for me to see C++ emphasized with no mention of C.
    I've always likened it to learning to drive on an automatic
    transmission, whereas learning in C is like learning to drive a stick.
    It's harder and most people don't do it anymore, even though it's far
    more beneficial in the long-run.

    I guess the premise I was alluding to was that, if PHP was written in
    C++, there would be a much larger /quantity/ of developers with a
    compatible skillset. You're right in that most of them would almost
    certainly be lacking in quality, but it would theoretically increase
    participation nonetheless IMNSHO. ;)
    That doesn't make any sense because they still wouldn't be able to
    understand the code. If you can't read a PHP written in C you definitely
    won't be able to read a PHP written in C++. And it would still be a yacc
    grammar or perhaps antlr and if you don't know the difference between a
    LALR and an LL grammar which language these tools spit out isn't going
    to make any difference at all. There are way more complicated concepts
    involved here than the implementation language.

    -Rasmus
  • Gwynne Raskind at Aug 27, 2012 at 1:39 am

    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
    On 08/26/2012 06:18 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
    Short of killing ourselves rewriting it in C++, I'm not sure there
    is an ideal solution to this problem.
    Because you think more people can grok C++ than C? That's not my
    experience. C is essentially a subset of C++. Any strong C++ developer
    (I think I have only ever met 2 of those) will know C inside out.

    -Rasmus
    That's where it gets ugly, in my experience; there are lots of
    mediocre C++ developers (and legions of even expert
    PHP/JavaScript/Python/Ruby/etc. devs) who couldn't so much as use a
    pointer without <insert favorite C++ pointer wrapper here> around to
    check their NULLs and do their deletes for them.

    LLVM is written in C++, and all that's done is raise the barrier of
    entry. C++ enables countless idioms that haven't made it into as
    high-level a language as PHP itself because of the potential for
    massive abuse (unchecked operator overloads, for one example).

    Basically, I expect that going to C++ would do nothing but encourage
    less talented people to do much more of the work, and the result would
    be a hopeless tangle (what we have now is a tangle, but at least it's
    not hopeless).

    My intention isn't to turn this into a language flame war, of course,
    but if you want to talk about rewriting PHP itself in a language that
    doesn't require all the dancing around that C does (with zval, for
    example), C++ is hardly the answer unless it's possible to enforce
    coding guidelines even more strictly than has already been done. (And
    a side note on that, the requirement of C89 standard compliance in PHP
    has less and less advantage these days, and handicaps those few
    language features in the later flavors of C (C99, gnu99, Clang C,
    etc.) which -could- lessen the current unreadability of the code.)

    -- Gwynne
  • Lars Strojny at Aug 27, 2012 at 1:48 am
    Hi Gwynne,

    Am 27.08.2012 um 03:39 schrieb Gwynne Raskind (And
    a side note on that, the requirement of C89 standard compliance in PHP
    has less and less advantage these days, and handicaps those few
    language features in the later flavors of C (C99, gnu99, Clang C,
    etc.) which -could- lessen the current unreadability of the code.)
    OT but because I stumbled upon that some time ago: what was the original reason to enforce C89 and what would be needed to allow a modern standard?

    With regards,
    Lars
  • Rasmus Lerdorf at Aug 27, 2012 at 1:55 am

    On 08/26/2012 06:48 PM, Lars Strojny wrote:
    Hi Gwynne,

    Am 27.08.2012 um 03:39 schrieb Gwynne Raskind <gwynne@darkrainfall.org>:
    (And
    a side note on that, the requirement of C89 standard compliance in PHP
    has less and less advantage these days, and handicaps those few
    language features in the later flavors of C (C99, gnu99, Clang C,
    etc.) which -could- lessen the current unreadability of the code.)
    OT but because I stumbled upon that some time ago: what was the original reason to enforce C89 and what would be needed to allow a modern standard?
    Main reason was the lack of compiler support on some platforms. C89 was
    the lowest common denominator that gave us the widest possible platform
    support.

    And we aren't just C89 anymore actually. We still try to stick to it
    when possible, but for example in the intl extension you will find C++
    and it won't build without it. The idea there is that any small embedded
    platform that may still only have C89 support is unlikely to link
    against the massive ICU library.

    But we may be at the point where even tiny embedded platforms have
    better compiler support and we don't need to stick to C89 anymore.

    -Rasmus
  • Lars Strojny at Aug 27, 2012 at 2:08 am
    Am 27.08.2012 um 03:55 schrieb Rasmus Lerdorf [...]
    And we aren't just C89 anymore actually. We still try to stick to it
    when possible, but for example in the intl extension you will find C++
    and it won't build without it. The idea there is that any small embedded
    platform that may still only have C89 support is unlikely to link
    against the massive ICU library.

    But we may be at the point where even tiny embedded platforms have
    better compiler support and we don't need to stick to C89 anymore.
    If I understand Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99) correctly, C99 is not at all supported in MS Visual C++ (except non-standard extensions like __inline or __forceinline). So C99 might not be a good candidate for us just now. But I'm sure Pierre has more on that issue.

    With regards,
    Lars
  • Stas Malyshev at Aug 27, 2012 at 7:27 am
    Hi!
    That's where it gets ugly, in my experience; there are lots of
    mediocre C++ developers (and legions of even expert
    PHP/JavaScript/Python/Ruby/etc. devs) who couldn't so much as use a
    pointer without <insert favorite C++ pointer wrapper here> around to
    check their NULLs and do their deletes for them.
    As a person who used both C and C++ and had to figure out others' code
    written in C and C++, my experience is that C code is usually easier to
    figure out (unless it's written in some heavily macro-ed style -
    remember that C preprocessor is a separate functional language and if
    you mix the two you can make some fine mess there) because C++ has tons
    of magic you have always to keep in mind. Operator is never just an
    operator, assignment is never just an assignment, pointer dereference is
    never just a pointer dereference. There's magic in all of that. And
    don't get me started on multilevel templates and trying to figure that
    out. Of course, C++ gives you a nice means of hiding complexity. But if
    you're not careful, you'd hide it in a way that it's still there, but
    you are no longer able to figure out where it is. So if somebody thinks
    C++ is a panacea here - probably not. Some pieces of Zend Engine are
    genuinely complex because they do complex things. I don't think hiding
    it behind C++ would help us much. Yes, we'd earn some with making zval
    an object, but probably not as much as one would think.
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Ferenc Kovacs at Aug 26, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:

    Hi!
    And this is how democracy works, Stas. If voters don't bother to turn
    up, too bad.
    Putting aside the fact that democracy has very little to do with what
    we're trying to do here (we're not government, we're opensource
    project), that's how democracy *doesn't work*. As you noticed, it is
    "too bad", and it is exactly the problem we're having - without
    participation, votes are decided by a random sample of whoever bothered
    to appear, often on a single vote.
    This is not a way to build consensus. It is a very unhealthy state of
    things, and it only contributes to the image of PHP as a project having
    no direction, no governance and basically existing in a state of
    brownian motion. I thought we were trying to shed this image.
    To make things a little bit clear.
    The members of the 'admin', 'phpcvs', 'voting' groups can vote.
    The admin and voting group membership is handed out on case-by-case basis
    (although we don't have an open process for that), and the phpcvs group
    membership is granted when somebody logs in with a php.net account, so
    anybody with a php.net account can vote by default.
    Last time when I asked, I was told, that only 3 people has membership of
    the voting group(dunno who handed out those), so they don't have a
    significant presence in the voting.
    Of course if we would actively would handle out accounts to active
    community reps and such (which was somehow defined by and accepted with the
    voting rfc) you concern could be real given that the active people seems to
    be more active than the average person out of the ~3000 people with
    php.netaccount.

    Your other concern, that votes can win by a small margin:
    The voting RFC states that syntax or other major changes require 2/3 of the
    votes, other changes require simple majority (50%+1 vote).
    The minimal discussion period, and minimal voting period was added that
    there is enough time for the voters to understand the topic and hand, and
    make their votes.

    So we could either raise the required numbers, or the voting time period,
    or we could create some arbitary number of minimal votes, but non of those
    issues would fix our base problem: the lack of participation of the voters.
    Of course, it would prevent us from accepting RFCs without a proper
    evaluation, but it could also prevent us from accepting anything.

    I think that the voting rfc itself is a good example of another problem:
    accepting RFCs based on the subjective intention, instead of the actual
    specification/implementation (or in the voting RFCs case, the lack of clear
    specification in some areas).

    Maybe now that we have some experience with the current process we could
    create an improved version or an addition to the voting rfc.
    What do you think?

    --
    Ferenc Kovács
    @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
  • Yahav Gindi Bar at Aug 26, 2012 at 7:01 pm
    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:

    Hi!
    And this is how democracy works, Stas. If voters don't bother to turn
    up, too bad.
    Putting aside the fact that democracy has very little to do with what
    we're trying to do here (we're not government, we're opensource
    project), that's how democracy *doesn't work*. As you noticed, it is
    "too bad", and it is exactly the problem we're having - without
    participation, votes are decided by a random sample of whoever bothered
    to appear, often on a single vote.
    This is not a way to build consensus. It is a very unhealthy state of
    things, and it only contributes to the image of PHP as a project having
    no direction, no governance and basically existing in a state of
    brownian motion. I thought we were trying to shed this image.
    To make things a little bit clear.
    The members of the 'admin', 'phpcvs', 'voting' groups can vote.
    The admin and voting group membership is handed out on case-by-case basis
    (although we don't have an open process for that), and the phpcvs group
    membership is granted when somebody logs in with a php.net account, so
    anybody with a php.net account can vote by default.
    Last time when I asked, I was told, that only 3 people has membership of
    the voting group(dunno who handed out those), so they don't have a
    significant presence in the voting.
    Of course if we would actively would handle out accounts to active
    community reps and such (which was somehow defined by and accepted with the
    voting rfc) you concern could be real given that the active people seems to
    be more active than the average person out of the ~3000 people with
    php.net account.

    Your other concern, that votes can win by a small margin:
    The voting RFC states that syntax or other major changes require 2/3 of
    the votes, other changes require simple majority (50%+1 vote).
    The minimal discussion period, and minimal voting period was added that
    there is enough time for the voters to understand the topic and hand, and
    make their votes.

    So we could either raise the required numbers, or the voting time period,
    or we could create some arbitary number of minimal votes, but non of those
    issues would fix our base problem: the lack of participation of the voters.
    Of course, it would prevent us from accepting RFCs without a proper
    evaluation, but it could also prevent us from accepting anything.

    I think that the voting rfc itself is a good example of another problem:
    accepting RFCs based on the subjective intention, instead of the actual
    specification/implementation (or in the voting RFCs case, the lack of clear
    specification in some areas).

    Maybe now that we have some experience with the current process we could
    create an improved version or an addition to the voting rfc.
    What do you think?

    --
    Ferenc Kovács
    @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

    I agree with the theoretical idea, but I don't see any other way to achieve
    good decision.
    We can't make peoples participate in the discussions so give peoples a vote
    without making sure they have good knowledge and they can be "trusted" is
    not a good thing.
    The main problem is the lack of participates.

    Um.. I thought about two ideas, not so good - but they can be improved to
    be an alternative:
    - We can try to contact the top popular PHP blogs and websites and request
    them to publish the discussed idea including all the required knowledge and
    theory about it and with it publish a poll. taking the results of the poll
    and add them to the internal poll.
    You can say that "peoples in this websites don't know well about this" -
    so we can, for example, divide the poll results by 2 and then add them.
    - My second idea is to give, in addition to the users who got regular vote
    permission, a permission to vote in the specific topic if
    they participate in the discussion - for example, each user who got more
    than X posts in discussion that contains Y posts can vote too.
  • Hannes Magnusson at Aug 27, 2012 at 9:49 am

    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
    Hi!
    And this is how democracy works, Stas. If voters don't bother to turn
    up, too bad.
    Putting aside the fact that democracy has very little to do with what
    we're trying to do here (we're not government, we're opensource
    project), that's how democracy *doesn't work*. As you noticed, it is
    "too bad", and it is exactly the problem we're having - without
    participation, votes are decided by a random sample of whoever bothered
    to appear, often on a single vote.
    This is not a way to build consensus. It is a very unhealthy state of
    things, and it only contributes to the image of PHP as a project having
    no direction, no governance and basically existing in a state of
    brownian motion. I thought we were trying to shed this image.

    I couldn't agree more.
    Which is why I have been trying to preach
    http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html

    -Hannes
  • Derick Rethans at Aug 27, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2012, Stas Malyshev wrote:

    And this is how democracy works, Stas. If voters don't bother to
    turn up, too bad.
    Putting aside the fact that democracy has very little to do with what
    we're trying to do here (we're not government, we're opensource
    project), that's how democracy *doesn't work*. As you noticed, it is
    "too bad", and it is exactly the problem we're having - without
    participation, votes are decided by a random sample of whoever
    bothered to appear, often on a single vote.

    This is not a way to build consensus. It is a very unhealthy state of
    things, and it only contributes to the image of PHP as a project
    having no direction, no governance and basically existing in a state
    of brownian motion. I thought we were trying to shed this image.
    I very much agree with this.

    cheers,
    Derick
  • Derick Rethans at Aug 27, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2012, Andrew Faulds wrote:

    They don't, you need voting karma too, having rfc karma isn't enough.

    And this is how democracy works, Stas. If voters don't bother to turn up, too bad.
    Atleast if you post to this list, could you follow the guidelines? They
    are here: http://uk.php.net/reST/README.MAILINGLIST_RULES

    cheers,
    Derick

    --
    http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
    Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
    twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
  • Andrew Faulds at Aug 27, 2012 at 8:02 am
    Hi.

    I haven't really tried much of C++ to be honest, but its sheer size and complexity means we should best avoid it, IMO. It can be confusing enough trying to understand some parts of the Zend engine without having to deal with operator overloading, templates and so-on. C is small enough that, aside from some of the complex undefined behaviour involving integer overflow and such, I can remember most of the language itself, making development much easier.  And sticking with C89 means there's also great compiler support - C99 still isn't fully supported in GCC, 13 years after standardisation! C++ has better support, of course, but C++'s magic and abstractions don't seem appropriate.


    --
    Sent from Samsung Mobile
    Andrew Faulds
    http://ajf.me/

    Stas Malyshev wrote:

    Hi!
    That's where it gets ugly, in my experience; there are lots of
    mediocre C++ developers (and legions of even expert
    PHP/JavaScript/Python/Ruby/etc. devs) who couldn't so much as use a
    pointer without <insert favorite C++ pointer wrapper here> around to
    check their NULLs and do their deletes for them.
    As a person who used both C and C++ and had to figure out others' code
    written in C and C++, my experience is that C code is usually easier to
    figure out (unless it's written in some heavily macro-ed style -
    remember that C preprocessor is a separate functional language and if
    you mix the two you can make some fine mess there) because C++ has tons
    of magic you have always to keep in mind. Operator is never just an
    operator, assignment is never just an assignment, pointer dereference is
    never just a pointer dereference. There's magic in all of that. And
    don't get me started on multilevel templates and trying to figure that
    out. Of course, C++ gives you a nice means of hiding complexity. But if
    you're not careful, you'd hide it in a way that it's still there, but
    you are no longer able to figure out where it is. So if somebody thinks
    C++ is a panacea here - probably not. Some pieces of Zend Engine are
    genuinely complex because they do complex things. I don't think hiding
    it behind C++ would help us much. Yes, we'd earn some with making zval
    an object, but probably not as much as one would think.
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
  • Andrew Faulds at Aug 27, 2012 at 1:38 pm
    Hi derick, can't read the rules now, on mobile. If you're referring to top-posting/bottom-posting though, that's the fault of the Android Gingerbread email client, which sucks.

    --
    Sent from Samsung Mobile
    Andrew Faulds
    http://ajf.me/

    Derick Rethans wrote:

    null
  • Derick Rethans at Aug 27, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, Andrew Faulds wrote:

    Hi derick, can't read the rules now, on mobile. If you're referring to
    top-posting/bottom-posting though, that's the fault of the Android
    Gingerbread email client, which sucks.
    So don't reply from a mobile. Besides top-posting, all your emails also
    don't do threading properly.

    Derick

    --
    http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
    Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
    twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
  • Andrew Faulds at Aug 27, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    On 27/08/12 15:49, Derick Rethans wrote:
    On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, Andrew Faulds wrote:

    Hi derick, can't read the rules now, on mobile. If you're referring to
    top-posting/bottom-posting though, that's the fault of the Android
    Gingerbread email client, which sucks.
    So don't reply from a mobile. Besides top-posting, all your emails also
    don't do threading properly.
    Whoops. Well, I'm using a better mail client now, thanks to you. I
    rarely have anything useful to say from my mobile though, I should
    exercise more restraint.

    --
    Andrew Faulds
    http://ajf.me/

Related Discussions

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase