Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:125297 X-Original-To: internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: internals@lists.php.net Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (php-smtp4.php.net [45.112.84.5]) by qa.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1DCB1A00BD for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2024 22:24:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=php.net; s=mail; t=1724711199; bh=PkelQz1FzZ4AVUhEGNVTotbFCgHr4Qup6CjDcQWD0Qg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=iwMB8uBGgFwzzLJk9k4IB7ugEJl9ELti11PTg/ZmyyGiZZoYnFpBCe+8HburKogS1 HGBBXmy8mPhHi0PMwu35QYeT5Xas8Nn2NdTHO7zDtwz42n1DT4JA6EvsUQ2N6USJWT shO/e7gz+p0Mvkh8uAXBQph5GeU22VboHW70MjF4nIBspsx5NBTydew4VLayv5kqtW GP/py9/ysPRGd5n7mTvymXWDHs2jI01c8EnoLX5TwdaAkJl4MOTOM1jtWNp8vHdDnR FmARxlqRjOA7HsHvfCcO2II2/vLhVHOKxJGzQokekafJ/X4ERd+uy8okISv7iV6wSX 6PzJOtW5/M4Vw== Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641B0180042 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2024 22:26:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,DMARC_MISSING,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from fout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.147]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2024 22:26:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phl-compute-03.internal (phl-compute-03.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailfout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F1201390084; Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:24:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-imap-09 ([10.202.2.99]) by phl-compute-03.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:24:44 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bottled.codes; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1724711084; x= 1724797484; bh=4apH8BUrrM5Q2zKMlsWKLAY6jXbT8Gyg7f4esots0Ww=; b=e sElfUMxnyB4ULy+nMj/E7CoHyhnB9L/dWRfEHVF1N7XHKsRRFwe8glLVWwbeGKnF uSNbLunjq/EzRXC6GO2q8ja6rFL92S8D02BFPnoMOxWGu1ztfGlcA/qMVsTT1am2 Gzo/zhFW9rts13Ls+/i0xZ8quizJOu0SNs829qF+DoVpul1nbeq2dKOLRQvmRSaC vxLSEretKw5H2aPj17kk47LQcgSf/9FUZKCo/44ghQdl6MtNG2VZ149CWRj64dDL i78mgwFnfT4nF0T613LSXXYEMA69OgmzdbLruY9WWvt0+36GbLf+DvhU3IvHAShK K7BRGtNhKbnpFsxDkL7Lw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; t=1724711084; x=1724797484; bh=4apH8BUrrM5Q2zKMlsWKLAY6jXbT 8Gyg7f4esots0Ww=; b=aKFRky5VpPV/+pxJvfiAjcCXFx/BNzhLQBqNlFEcELmF JRHaoHQ7/IJEGQAIC9WDUGZpERjgIRHwQHwS0NjalGA/Dnz2oGjr1CYLrLzDZ0eE QZW4ATQohzFqAWkYHxeFmlNGhFFu8uklVUwtNOScIDaslDObrVuW7CZ+m0Rusr2F lNLbH7DBjUalwp9bP5een2qVozCdwcxbJchusjWawm0JK5gbTa9Lg1KIQAEX+YmK 7YiKW/T3T+1krHMQzcSVPEiTBhq5+1Bv1jdHhdThve6s1M4d6l65pVOObsZ5kkUF q+m/tnF+5j1xDxTHhcA8e0zSZipio2ICGqLZgOtJHQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddruddvledgtdelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefoggffhf fvvefkjghfufgtsegrtderreertdejnecuhfhrohhmpedftfhosgcunfgrnhguvghrshdf uceorhhosgessghothhtlhgvugdrtghouggvsheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepjeekff elhfdtheekiedvueejfeeiffehleeifeetffevgefhtedvffetvdettdeknecuffhomhgr ihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtghomhdpmhgrihhlihhnghhlihhsthdqrhhulhgvshdrmhgupd gtrghttghouhhnthgvrhdrghhurhhunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghr rghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprhhosgessghothhtlhgvugdrtghouggvshdpnhgspghrtg hpthhtohepvddpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepihhnthgvrhhnrghl shesghhpsgdrmhhovgdprhgtphhtthhopehinhhtvghrnhgrlhhssehlihhsthhsrdhphh hprdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: ifab94697:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id F1CE7780065; Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:24:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface Precedence: bulk list-help: list-post: List-Id: internals.lists.php.net x-ms-reactions: disallow MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 00:24:02 +0200 To: "Gina P. Banyard" Cc: internals@lists.php.net Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <1b59392a-68cb-36eb-0fef-977ac7113520@php.net> <7c617909-c019-4a3d-bee9-8e4b0f949acf@app.fastmail.com> <0a8ada40-9784-42c8-8eda-e33a08a3bff3@app.fastmail.com> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] State of Generics and Collections Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=7bba67be263c48adb14906ca99f3474d From: rob@bottled.codes ("Rob Landers") --7bba67be263c48adb14906ca99f3474d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Aug 25, 2024, at 22:28, Gina P. Banyard wrote: > On Friday, 23 August 2024 at 23:55, Rob Landers wr= ote: >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024, at 23:06, Larry Garfield wrote: >>>=20 >>> With generics, the syntax isn't the hard part. The hard part is typ= e inference, or accepting that generic-using code will just be extraordi= narily verbose and clumsy. There is (as I understand from Arnaud, who a= gain can correct me if I'm wrong) not a huge amount of difference in eff= ort between supporting only Foo and supporting Foo>. The = nesting isn't the hard part. The hard part is not having to type Foo 4 times across 2 files every time you do something with generics. If= that can be resolved satisfactorily (and performantly), then the road m= ap to reified generics is reasonably visible. >>=20 >> Ok. But wasn't there something about nesting causing super-linear per= formance issues? So, disable nesting and don't worry about inference. >> [...] >> Ah, this is what I was thinking of. Thank you. Yeah, instead of "nest= ing" prior, I was referring to union types. >=20 > Rob, with all the kindness I can give, please condense your emails to = have a semblance of sense. > This is not a bar where you are having a one on one conversation. > You are sending emails to thousands of people on a mailing list that c= an read you. > It would be appreciated if you could go over everything you read, dige= st the content, and then form a reply. > Or at the minimum, if you realize that a previous remark you made does= not apply, redraft the email. > And possibly even sit on it for a bit before sending it, as you routin= ely come up with a point you forgot to include in your email. >=20 > Reading the mailing list is an exhausting task, especially when the vo= lume is excessive. > As a reminder to everyone, we have rules: https://github.com/php/php-s= rc/blob/master/docs/mailinglist-rules.md >=20 > However, in your case, please note the following rule: >=20 >> If you notice that your posting ratio is much higher than that of oth= er people, double-check the above rules. Try to wait a bit longer before= sending your replies to give other people more time to digest your answ= ers and more importantly give you the opportunity to make sure that you = aggregate your current position into a single mail instead of multiple o= nes. >=20 > For the past 2=E2=80=933 months, you have sent the vast majority of em= ails on this list, this is not what I would consider normal nor expected= for your level of "seniority" (for the lack of better word) on the proj= ect. > This is not to say to stop posting and replying, just to do it in a mo= re conscious manner for the rest of us reading you. >=20 > Best regards, >=20 > Gina P. Banyard >=20 >>=20 Hi Gina! I hope this email finds you well. Sincerely, thank you for your feedback= ; it's clear that you are addressing this issue with the best intentions. I want to say that I understand the importance of this rule and keeping = the mailing list conversations relevant, especially given the large audi= ence. I want to also acknowledge that I have occasionally responded quic= kly without fully considering the impact on readability. Moving forward,= I will make a conscious effort to ensure my emails are more thoroughly = reviewed. Regarding your point about condensing emails, I see where you are coming= from. However, my approach has been to respond within the same thread t= o maintain context, which I believe helps keep the discussion more organ= ized for threaded readers. I understand that there is probably a balance= there and will be more mindful in the future. > For the past 2=E2=80=933 months, you have sent the vast majority of em= ails on this list, this is not what I would consider normal To understand just how bad I was breaking this rule, I created https://e= mail.catcounter.guru/ for anyone on the list to see where they currently= stand with their post-ratio in comparison to others. It is updated ever= y two hours, and you can enter an email address in the top-right to unma= sk an email address, otherwise the email addresses are anonymous. Best regards, Rob --7bba67be263c48adb14906ca99f3474d Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Aug 25,= 2024, at 22:28, Gina P. Banyard wrote:
On Friday, 23 August 2024 at 23:55, Ro= b Landers <rob@bottled.codes> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024, at 23:06,= Larry Garfield wrote:

With generics, the syntax isn't the hard part= .  The hard part is type inference, or accepting that generic-using= code will just be extraordinarily verbose and clumsy.  There is (a= s I understand from Arnaud, who again can correct me if I'm wrong) not a= huge amount of difference in effort between supporting only Foo<Bar&= gt; and supporting Foo<Bar<Baz>>.  The nesting isn't th= e hard part.  The hard part is not having to type Foo<Bar> 4 = times across 2 files every time you do something with generics.  If= that can be resolved satisfactorily (and performantly), then the road m= ap to reified generics is reasonably visible.

Ok. But wasn't there something about nesting causing sup= er-linear performance issues? So, disable nesting and don't worry about = inference.
[...]
Ah, this is what I was thinking of. Thank you. Yeah, instead= of "nesting" prior, I was referring to union types.

Rob, with all the kindness I can give, plea= se condense your emails to have a semblance of sense.
This is not a bar where you are havin= g a one on one conversation.
You are sending emails to thousands of people on a mailing lis= t that can read you.
Or at the minimum, if you realize that a previous re= mark you made does not apply, redraft the email.
And possibly even sit on it for a bit befo= re sending it, as you routinely come up with a point you forgot to inclu= de in your email.
<= br>
Reading the mailing= list is an exhausting task, especially when the volume is excessive.

However, i= n your case, please note the following rule:

If you notice that= your posting ratio is much higher than that of other=0Apeople, double-c= heck the above rules. Try to wait a bit longer before=0Asending your rep= lies to give other people more time to digest your answers=0Aand more im= portantly give you the opportunity to make sure that you=0Aaggregate you= r current position into a single mail instead of multiple=0Aones.

For the past 2= =E2=80=933 months, you have sent the vast majority of emails on this lis= t, this is not what I would consider normal nor expected for your level = of "seniority" (for the lack of better word) on the project.
This is not to say to stop posting and replying, just= to do it in a more conscious manner for the rest of us reading you.

Best regards,

Gina P. Banyard



Hi Gina!
<= /div>

I hope this email finds you well. Sincerely, th= ank you for your feedback; it's clear that you are addressing this issue= with the best intentions.

I want to say th= at I understand the importance of this rule and keeping the mailing list= conversations relevant, especially given the large audience. I want to = also acknowledge that I have occasionally responded quickly without full= y considering the impact on readability. Moving forward, I will make a c= onscious effort to ensure my emails are more thoroughly reviewed.

Regarding your point about condensing emails, I s= ee where you are coming from. However, my approach has been to respond w= ithin the same thread to maintain context, which I believe helps keep th= e discussion more organized for threaded readers. I understand that ther= e is probably a balance there and will be more mindful in the future.

For the past 2=E2=80= =933 months, you have sent the vast majority of emails on this list, thi= s is not what I would consider normal

To understand just how bad I was breaking this rule, I created&n= bsp;https://email.catcounter.= guru/ for anyone on the list to see where they currently stand = with their post-ratio in comparison to others. It is updated every two h= ours, and you can enter an email address in the top-right to unmask an e= mail address, otherwise the email addresses are anonymous.

Best regards,

Rob
--7bba67be263c48adb14906ca99f3474d--