Re: Looking (not very far) ahead to PHP 7.1
| From: | Midori Kocak | Date: | Fri, 06 May 2016 07:41:16 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Looking (not very far) ahead to PHP 7.1 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-93097@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hello Everyone,
Remember the ??=. I had a faulty implementation and after that a serious surgery and I did not have
the time to update my implementation. I am OK now but what should I do with my RFC? Can somebody
implement it or should I move forward with the implementation. What do you guys say? What is your
advice?
Best wishes.
Midori Kocak
Computer Scientist & Engineer
http://www.mynameismidori.com <http://www.mynameismidori.com/>
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art
and science.� Albert Einstein
> On 06 May 2016, at 09:25, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org
> <mailto:pthreads@pthreads.org>> wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org
> <mailto:pthreads@pthreads.org>>
> Date: Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Looking (not very far) ahead to PHP 7.1
> To: Björn Larsson <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com <`
> ÿ¡KÇz•€¾:âpZŽmailto:bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>>
> Cc: Davey Shafik <davey@php.net
> <mailto:davey@php.net>>
>
>
> Morning,
>
> PHP 5 has been with us for a long time, towards the end of it's life, it
> didn't make much sense to have protracted pre-release periods.
>
> PHP 7 has been with us for no time at all, about 5 minutes; It still
> creates a fair amount of core (/Zend) bugs, and there are only a few people
> who are able, or who bother, to search for and or resolve such bugs.
>
> An RFC does not *need* to be accompanied by an implementation (for some
> reason), so we can't very well say "no more RFC after X". All we are
> concerned about is the implementation that accompanies the RFC.
>
> Everyone should move forward with their RFC, and voting, in the
> knowledge that if the implementation is not ready for Beta 1, it's too
> late.
>
> Worth noting that we're only really talking about the feature kind of
> RFC: If some internal problem is found that requires an RFC discussion to
> resolve and choose a solution for, no problem - that's what we should be
> doing at this point.
>
> We don't really need to be any more restrictive than that.
>
> I quite often supply patches for RFC discussions, I get that it's
> annoying for someone to say "staph". I get that 7 is shiny, it's easy to
> implement complex features, I get that we all waited a long time for such a
> platform.
>
> I also get that 7.2 is going to be a thing :)
>
> Cheers
> Joe
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Björn Larsson <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com
> <mailto:bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok, well I guess there is always room to change at alpha1 when
>> all RFC's should be on the table. Agree that 7.1 looks like a busy
>> release :-)
>>
>> I mean, earlier (5.6 & maybe also 7.0) no new RFC's introduced
>> after alpha1 and voting closed by first beta. Same strategy in 7.1?
>> Cheers //Björn
>>
>>
>> Den 2016-05-05 kl. 22:53, skrev Davey Shafik:
>>
>> Bjorn,
>>
>> I had the same suggestion, but Joe has convinced me that due to the amount
>> and extent of changes we'd rather have more than we need, than too few!
>>
>> - Davey
>>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Björn Larsson <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com
>> <mailto:bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Aha, I see & tnx. It's not on the front-page so I missed it.
>>>
>>> One reflection is that you have similar amount of
>>> alpha / beta / RC steps like for 7.0 that was a major
>>> release. Looking at todo lists on 5.x. the numbers of
>>> steps are smaller. On the other hand 7.1 seems like
>>> a busy release with typed properties etc
>>>
>>> Just my 5c...
>>>
>>> Cheers //Björn
>>> Den 2016-05-05 kl. 22:36, skrev Davey Shafik:
>>>
>>> The same one used for the vote is where we are currently working. Nothing
>>> is set in stone yet!
>>>
>>> https://wiki.php.net/todo/php71
>>> <https://wiki.php.net/todo/php71>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Björn Larsson <
>>> <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Short question, will you make a todolist like for 7.0 on:
>>>> - https://wiki.php.net/todo
>>>>
>>>> And good luck with the work as RMs! Already looking
>>>> forward to 7.1 with some exciting content.
>>>>
>>>> Regards //Björn Larsson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Den 2016-05-05 kl. 18:26, skrev Joe Watkins:
>>>>
>>>>> Afternoon internals,
>>>>>
>>>>> We are hoping for alpha 1 to be available on June 9th, this is a
>>>>> little
>>>>> over 5 weeks away.
>>>>>
>>>>> Beta 1 (~1 month after alpha 1) on July 7th will be our feature
>>>>> freeze
>>>>> date - no new RFC's can target 7.1 after this date.
>>>>>
>>>>> PHP 7.1 has many things targeting it at the moment, some
>>>>> overlapping,
>>>>> all of them in various states.
>>>>>
>>>>> So that the dust is allowed to settle during beta phase, we need to
>>>>> insist that anything that does not have an implementation by the time
>>>>> beta
>>>>> 1 comes be pushed back to 7.2.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are working on a core (/Zend) feature right now, especially
>>>>> draft (unannounced) features, and are targeting 7.1, as a matter of
>>>>> courtesy (not requirement), I'd like to ask you to move forward,
>>>>> post-haste. It would be good (although not required) if we could get
>>>>> /Zend
>>>>> stuff merged before alpha 1 ... I realize this may be a pipe dream. I'm
>>>>> new
>>>>> at this, and still have dreams ...
>>>>>
>>>>> TL:DR, dates for diary:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alpha 1 June 9th
>>>>> Beta 1 (freeze) July 7th
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>