Hi!
I’m looking for way to gain some Karma to create an RFC.
I’ve already made first implementation and shared it: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/17647
I can make 3 different RFC to discuss each change separately, let me know if it’s necessary.
Best regards,
Dmitrii Derepko.
@xepozz
Hi Dmitrii
I’m looking for way to gain some Karma to create an RFC.
I’ve already made first implementation and shared it: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/17647I can make 3 different RFC to discuss each change separately, let me know if it’s necessary.
RFC karma was granted. Good luck!
Note that I believe we should solve the technical issues mentioned on
the PR before voting on this RFC. They are very much non-trivial to
solve (I have tried multiple solutions over the years, all of which so
far were complex or otherwise unsatisfactory). But I would be ready to
investigate further, given that my long-standing RFC for match-blocks
[1] is also affected, at least in an unrestricted form.
Ilija
Thank you, Ilija. I really appreciate it.
Could you please advise do I need to create RFC or it’s better do to it after solving technical issues?
If so, one common RFC or each for each operator: return, break, continue?
I’d also like to see all this problems by myself and I have a question. Is it possible to run php and add breakpoints somewhere at the parser and any other places? Is there an instruction how to profile it? Thanks
Best regards,
Dmitrii Derepko.
@xepozz
Hi Dmitrii
I’m looking for way to gain some Karma to create an RFC.
I’ve already made first implementation and shared it: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/17647I can make 3 different RFC to discuss each change separately, let me know if it’s necessary.
RFC karma was granted. Good luck!
Note that I believe we should solve the technical issues mentioned on
the PR before voting on this RFC. They are very much non-trivial to
solve (I have tried multiple solutions over the years, all of which so
far were complex or otherwise unsatisfactory). But I would be ready to
investigate further, given that my long-standing RFC for match-blocks
[1] is also affected, at least in an unrestricted form.Ilija
Hi Dmitry
Please do not "top-post" on this list. Put your reply below the
message you are quoting and ideally cut the quoted parts to the minimum.
See below like I do:
Am 2025-02-02 10:28, schrieb Dmitry Derepko:
If so, one common RFC or each for each operator: return, break,
continue?
break and continue should be bundled together, because they are so
similar. I'd say that a single RFC (and thus a single discussion for all
of them) is fine and that RFC can then contain two primary 2/3 majority
votes for "Should return statements become expressions?" and "Should
break and continue statements become expressions?".
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
breakandcontinueshould be bundled together, because they are so
similar. I'd say that a single RFC (and thus a single discussion for all
of them) is fine and that RFC can then contain two primary 2/3 majority
votes for "Should return statements become expressions?" and "Should
break and continue statements become expressions?".
Also don't forget about continue/breaks less popular cousin goto. :)
It should at least be explained why it is or isn't included in the
RFC.
Ilija