Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52140
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.170 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        b=DP6hoV9JLWDizgObJZn7ddFkMW9Qs16PLI7N3edthDwdVCd0VxS/qoGsJ+36shaOAZ
         Mtfhe1Z9XwQv7HSJSD/KmiJCx0Tm2bxPA65gH5n7ISzsXily5xBE1Yckle/OQJM3OZkY
         ooOEo9/CenUQW4Z6PLpvDpup84k3NbsVcCqZA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: tyra3l@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4DC75FFF.40008@lerdorf.com>
References: <4DC729EE.9090600@sugarcrm.com>
	<4DC75FFF.40008@lerdorf.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:41:07 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTinz_W2oHODz8E7naVjzUZhYtRi8TA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6154126827cf04a2d2f66c
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 again
From: info@tyrael.hu (Ferenc Kovacs)

--90e6ba6154126827cf04a2d2f66c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:

> On 05/08/2011 04:40 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
>> I has been almost a month since we did our routine talk about 5.4, so
>> here it goes again. The patch for the scalar hints seems to be pretty
>> simple (see http://random-bits-of.info/no_scalar_hints.diff - no
>> generated files included, that will be done on actual commit), so it
>> should not hold us too much.
>> I propose putting current code in a branch and continue without scalar
>> typing for 5.4 - any objections to that?
>>
>> I would like to propose the following process (of course, dates can be
>> moved around, etc. - I consider phase lengths be more important that
>> actual dates, but any of them can be shifted if reason arises) for 5.4:
>>
>> - starting now - nominate features for 5.4 (see
>> https://wiki.php.net/todo/php54), discussion on them
>> - May 18 - start voting and debating on features that have no clear
>> consensus support immediately. On the end of May is also phptek, so we
>> could have some discussion there about it if needed.
>> - June 15 (a bit more than a month) - alpha, branching of 5_4, open only
>> for bugfixes and features in TODO list that are approved and can be done
>> by beta time.
>> - July 20 - beta, bugfixes only (if we add a lot of features, we may
>> want to insert another 1-month alpha period, so far it doesn't look like
>> it but may change)
>> - Aug 24 - RC1, then an RC every 2 weeks until stable
>> - Release - somewhere in October or November, depending on the RCs.
>>
>> I think we need to start moving. Not much is happening in 5.4 now as far
>> as I can see, and we have a good feature set that is long due to be
>> released.
>> For proposing stuff for 5.4, please do it here:
>> https://wiki.php.net/todo/php54 and also on the list if it wasn't
>> discussed and you think it requires discussion.
>>
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> I see the array shortcuts are on your todo discussion list there. We
> probably shouldn't get into a full discussion on that since it will span
> hundreds of messages. But if any of the folks who voted no last time around
> have changed their minds, it would be good to know. And before deciding, try
> using MongoDB from PHP for a couple of weeks. :)
>
>
maybe it would be a good idea to gather the pros/cons which was brought up
in the last discussion/poll.

another thing that I would love to see on the list: named parameters.
it was recently brought up, and I think that the original argument for the
rejection isn't true anymore:
http://www.php.net/~derick/meeting-notes.html#named-parameters
adding naming parameters would actually help to make clean and maintainable
code.
currently if you want optional params, you either have to create long list
of arguments with default values, and call your functions like
-$foo->bar($a, $b, NULL, NULL, false, $c), or you have to put your argument
into an array/object and pass that to your function, which pretty much
defeats the purpose.

I don't propose that we should hold up the release process with that, but we
should at least consider it for inclusion.

what do you think?

Tyrael

--90e6ba6154126827cf04a2d2f66c--