# 5.4 beta - Thread: https://externals.io/message/55001 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/55001 - Started by Stas Malyshev on 2011-08-29T05:34:21+00:00 - Messages: 28 - Page 1 of 2: messages 1 to 25 (25 per page, add `?page=N` to the URL) - Next page: https://externals.io/message/55001.md?page=2 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #55001 — Stas Malyshev — 2011-08-29T05:34:21+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55001 Hi! According to our release plan, we are planning to release the 5.4 beta this week on September 1st, which means it'll be packaged on Wednesday Aug 31st. If you have any TODO items you want in, please do it before that. Thanks, -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #55002 — Gustavo Lopes — 2011-08-29T05:55:37+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55002 · In reply to: #55001 On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 06:34:21 +0100, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > According to our release plan, we are planning to release the 5.4 beta > this week on September 1st, which means it'll be packaged on Wednesday > Aug 31st. If you have any TODO items you want in, please do it before > that. > I should ask someone with Zend karma to commit the closure rebinding patch. Context: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closures/object-extension#privateprotected_members_scope Vote: https://wiki.php.net/todo/php54/vote Thank you. -- Gustavo Lopes --- ## #55003 — Rasmus Lerdorf — 2011-08-29T06:06:01+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55003 · In reply to: #55001 > According to our release plan, we are planning to release the 5.4 beta > this week on September 1st, which means it'll be packaged on Wednesday > Aug 31st. If you have any TODO items you want in, please do it before that. I would really like to see the number of failed tests hit 0 before we even consider a 5.4 beta release. It shouldn't take that long to fix the remaining tests. I'm down to 48 with just about everything enabled on my Ubuntu laptop here. They are listed here if you are curious: http://codepad.org/jtVeWgao If each one of us attacked just one of these over the next couple of days, we'd be done. At the very least, if we can't come up with a good fix and there is a good reason for not fixing it before the beta, the test should be moved to xfail. -Rasmus --- ## #55004 — Christian Stocker — 2011-08-29T06:57:13+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55004 · In reply to: #55003 I will look into the 3 failing xsl tests. chregu > > > […] > > I would really like to see the number of failed tests hit 0 before we > even consider a 5.4 beta release. It shouldn't take that long to fix the > remaining tests. I'm down to 48 with just about everything enabled on my > Ubuntu laptop here. They are listed here if you are curious: > http://codepad.org/jtVeWgao > > If each one of us attacked just one of these over the next couple of > days, we'd be done. At the very least, if we can't come up with a good > fix and there is a good reason for not fixing it before the beta, the > test should be moved to xfail. > > -Rasmus > -- Liip AG // Feldstrasse 133 // CH-8004 Zurich Tel +41 43 500 39 81 // Mobile +41 76 561 88 60 www.liip.ch // blog.liip.ch // GnuPG 0x0748D5FE --- ## #55007 — Stas Malyshev — 2011-08-29T07:23:56+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55007 · In reply to: #55003 Hi! > I would really like to see the number of failed tests hit 0 before we > even consider a 5.4 beta release. It shouldn't take that long to fix the > remaining tests. I'm down to 48 with just about everything enabled on my > Ubuntu laptop here. They are listed here if you are curious: > http://codepad.org/jtVeWgao It'd be a great idea to get 0 fails. Could we do it by Wed? ;) -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #55008 — Rasmus Lerdorf — 2011-08-29T07:39:38+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55008 · In reply to: #55007 > Hi! > > > > […] > > It'd be a great idea to get 0 fails. Could we do it by Wed? ;) I don't know, but the release schedule relies on us fixing outstanding issues. Given our recent history, failing bugs are, and should be, outstanding issues. -Rasmus --- ## #55009 — Nathaniel Catchpole — 2011-08-29T07:42:32+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55009 · In reply to: #55008 Unless test failures are critical, it seems worth either commenting out or converting to xfail ones that can't be immediately fixed. That gives a 0 fail baseline to work from for detecting regressions, and test failures should be associated with bug reports anyway so it's not like they'd get lost forever. Nat > > > […] > > I don't know, but the release schedule relies on us fixing outstanding > issues. Given our recent history, failing bugs are, and should be, > outstanding issues. > > -Rasmus --- ## #55010 — Rasmus Lerdorf — 2011-08-29T07:48:31+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55010 · In reply to: #55009 Sure, and I mentioned that initially. But we at least need to look at each failing test and make a determination before blindly pushing out a beta. I have fixed a couple of easily fixable tests in the past couple of days that anybody who looked at them could have fixed. -Rasmus > Unless test failures are critical, it seems worth either commenting out > or converting to xfail ones that can't be immediately fixed. > > That gives a 0 fail baseline to work from for detecting regressions, and > test failures should be associated with bug reports anyway so it's not > like they'd get lost forever. > > Nat > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf > wrote: > > > > […] > fix the > > […] > enabled on my > > […] > > I don't know, but the release schedule relies on us fixing outstanding > issues. Given our recent history, failing bugs are, and should be, > outstanding issues. > > -Rasmus --- ## #55011 — Lester Caine — 2011-08-29T07:54:25+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55011 · In reply to: #55003 Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > If each one of us attacked just one of these over the next couple of > days, we'd be done. At the very least, if we can't come up with a good > fix and there is a good reason for not fixing it before the beta, the > test should be moved to xfail. I've still not had an answer about the question of the failing PDO tests. I see from your list that only PDO tests your list are mysql specific code, but a large number of original gcov list were being picked up generically and need to be fixed for each database driver. When will the gcov list be updated? ext/interbase/tests correction had been made, but I don't thing they have been approved yet. The fixes are dependent on the target database version, and may actually be a good case for finally splitting firebird from interbase since the two are now drifting apart in the fine detail these tests address and there may well be failures with other database setups :( -- 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// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php --- ## #55047 — Stas Malyshev — 2011-08-31T23:16:11+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55047 · In reply to: #55002 Hi! I see we're making good progress on unit tests fails, though a bunch still remains. So in case somebody didn't read the discussion - I'm moving beta target to next week, September 8, in hope we'll have 0 unit test fails by then. Thanks for everybody contributing to fixing the tests and keep the good work! :) -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #55275 — Stas Malyshev — 2011-09-07T06:46:45+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55275 · In reply to: #55002 Hi! > I should ask someone with Zend karma to commit the closure rebinding patch. > > Context: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closures/object-extension#privateprotected_members_scope > > Vote: https://wiki.php.net/todo/php54/vote Done. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #55733 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2011-10-07T17:31:42+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55733 · In reply to: #55275 > Hi! > > > > […] > > Done. > > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 > > -- > > > > Hi. do we have a wiki/documentation about what exactly ended up in 5.4 from the Closure improvements? (Rebind) https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closures/object-extension#privateprotected_members_scope is really hard to read, as it contains all of the suggested ideas and possible solutions, etc. if not, maybe someone with the required knowledge could start working on adding the documentation? -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --- ## #55734 — Hannes Magnusson — 2011-10-07T18:13:49+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55734 · In reply to: #55733 > > > […] > > Hi. > > do we have a wiki/documentation about what exactly ended up in 5.4 > from the Closure improvements? (Rebind) > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closures/object-extension#privateprotected_members_scope > is really hard to read, as it contains all of the suggested ideas and > possible solutions, etc. > if not, maybe someone with the required knowledge  could start working > on adding the documentation? The UPGRADING file is also completely worthless. I have no idea what is going on, as a dev, nor as a documentor. Be it traits, closures, or whatever random new parameter or function was added. When 5.3 came around, I literally had to diff the sources to figure out what was going on, I am not going through that again. The RM should have a 110% clear oversight over what has changed, new and removed, and should therefore write clear notes about it before an beta exists, then the doc team can take those notes and write proper docs. If that doesn't happen, we wind up with more features like streams and filters which took 5+ years to document. -Hannes --- ## #55737 — Gustavo Lopes — 2011-10-07T18:58:40+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55737 · In reply to: #55733 > do we have a wiki/documentation about what exactly ended up in 5.4 > from the Closure improvements? (Rebind) > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closures/object-extension#privateprotected_members_scope > is really hard to read, as it contains all of the suggested ideas and > possible solutions, etc. > if not, maybe someone with the required knowledge could start working > on adding the documentation? > I don't think so, but if I had to summarize the innovations in 5.4, this would be it: - Closures can now have an associated scope - Closures can now have a bound object - Closures can now be either static or non-static - Closures defined in a place with an active scope are scoped accordingly - Closures defined inside an instance method (or bound closure) have a bound object (namely $this) - Closures are static if defined within a static method or with the static keyword (static function() { ... }) static => !bound (but it's false that !static => bound) bound => scoped !static && scoped => bound (i.e., if !static, scoped <=> bound) The bound instance and the scoped can be freely changed with Closure::bind and $closure->bindTo, subject to these constraints. -- Gustavo Lopes --- ## #55738 — Daniel Convissor — 2011-10-07T19:27:05+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55738 · In reply to: #55734 > > When 5.3 came around, I literally had to diff the sources to figure > out what was going on, I am not going through that again. ... > If that doesn't happen, we wind up with more features like streams and > filters which took 5+ years to document. The person making changes to the language needs to ensure those changes are documented. That can include either writing a first draft of the docs themselves and/or teaming up with someone on the documentation team. The most reliable thing to do is commit the php-src and phpdoc changes in one commit. At the very least, we could have a TODO file in phpdoc that contains a simple plain text explanation of the new functionality. "You can say that I'm a dreamer...", --Dan -- T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y data intensive web and database programming http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/ 4015 7th Ave #4, Brooklyn NY 11232 v: 718-854-0335 f: 718-854-0409 --- ## #55739 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2011-10-07T19:32:24+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55739 · In reply to: #55737 ' > > > > […] > > I don't think so, but if I had to summarize the innovations in 5.4, this > would be it: > > - Closures can now have an associated scope > - Closures can now have a bound object > - Closures can now be either static or non-static > > - Closures defined in a place with an active scope are scoped accordingly > - Closures defined inside an instance method (or bound closure) have a bound > object (namely $this) > - Closures are static if defined within a static method or with the static > keyword (static function() { ... }) > > static => !bound > (but it's false that !static => bound) > bound => scoped > !static && scoped => bound > (i.e., if !static, scoped <=> bound) > > The bound instance and the scoped can be freely changed with Closure::bind > and $closure->bindTo, subject to these constraints. "- Closures can now have an associated scope" as it is https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closures/object-extension#privateprotected_members_scope ? at first I thought that scope means Variable scope, but I think I get it now: it means that when the Closure calls/access something through $this, it will be handled as it was called/accessed from the given class(scope). and this also explains why we had to add the third param for Closure::bind. the bound param defines what is the $this pointing to, and the scope means that from what scope would be used for accessing the $this. having a static Closure means that it won't have the $this, but it can still have a scope (so it can interact with other static methods). thanks, I think I managed to wrap my head around that! -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --- ## #55742 — Gustavo Lopes — 2011-10-07T22:06:21+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55742 · In reply to: #55739 > "- Closures can now have an associated scope" > as it is > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closures/object-extension#privateprotected_members_scope > ? > at first I thought that scope means Variable scope, but I think I get > it now: it means that when the Closure calls/access something through > $this, it will be handled as it was called/accessed from the given > class(scope). Yes, sorry, by "scope" I mean "EG(scope)", which is a class entry, and, for the purposes relevant here, determines access to protected/private members. I did not want to convey its usual general meaning. -- Gustavo Lopes --- ## #55749 — frederic.hardy@mageekbox.net — 2011-10-08T10:02:57+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55749 · In reply to: #55737 Hello ! > I don't think so, but if I had to summarize the innovations in 5.4, this would be it: > > - Closures can now have an associated scope > - Closures can now have a bound object > - Closures can now be either static or non-static > > - Closures defined in a place with an active scope are scoped accordingly > - Closures defined inside an instance method (or bound closure) have a bound object (namely $this) > - Closures are static if defined within a static method or with the static keyword (static function() { ... }) Is it possible to have sample code about these ? They will be very interesting to understand the RFC correctly and write documentation or tutorial. For example, i was tryed to use $this in a closure with PHP 5.B beta without any success :/, so if using $this in a closure is possible, i would like to know how to do it.. Best regards, Fred -- ======================================================================== Frédéric Hardy : Architecte d'application/Admin. système/Ergonome CV : http://blog.mageekbox.net/public/cv.frederic.hardy.pdf Blog : http://blog.mageekbox.net Twitter : http://twitter.com/mageekguy ======================================================================== --- ## #55755 — Gustavo Lopes — 2011-10-08T17:22:18+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55755 · In reply to: #55749 On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:02:57 +0100, Frédéric Hardy wrote: > Hello ! > > > […] > > Is it possible to have sample code about these ? > They will be very interesting to understand the RFC correctly and write > documentation or tutorial. > For example, i was tryed to use $this in a closure with PHP 5.B beta > without any success :/, so if using $this in a closure is possible, i > would like to know how to do it.. > You can take a look at the tests. For instance, this patch has many: http://nebm.ist.utl.pt/~glopes/misc/closures_scope.patch For more, you can look at the SVN tree (Zend/tests/closure_*). In any case, here is a very simple example: foo; }; } } $a = new A; $c = $a->foo(); echo $c(); //echos "bar" -- Gustavo Lopes --- ## #55756 — Stas Malyshev — 2011-10-08T17:48:44+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55756 · In reply to: #55734 Hi! > The UPGRADING file is also completely worthless. > I have no idea what is going on, as a dev, nor as a documentor. > Be it traits, closures, or whatever random new parameter or function was added. > When 5.3 came around, I literally had to diff the sources to figure > out what was going on, I am not going through that again. I'll check out UPGRADING file, thanks for reminding about it, however I do not think UPGRADING is the right place to document language features - and, frankly, I didn't hear about the rule that one is supposed to update UPGRADING file with each change. I think stuff should be documented first and foremost in the usual place - in the manual and it is the responsibility of whoever adds the feature to ensure that it happens. I'll go through new features that are in TODO and make a list of which ones aren't properly documented soon. Right now, for example, as far as I can see Closure is not documented at all with regard to which methods it has, and the syntax for anonymous functions in general is somewhat learn-by-example - neither static closures nor "use" aren't explicitly documented - even though the docs mention importing parameters from parent scope, the docs text (as opposed to the example) never mentions the "use" keyword is used for that. Neither use by-value/by-reference is mentioned. The issue of scoping is completely avoided and the only note tangentially implies you can use $this in the closure but gives no explanation about how one would actually use it. It would be great if we could improve this ASAP in the manual. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #55813 — Stas Malyshev — 2011-10-16T02:15:23+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55813 · In reply to: #55734 Hi! Following Hanness' mail a week or so ago, I went over NEWS and the wiki and here is the list of undocumented stuff we have now in 5.4. It may be not complete, so if you know of any other undocumented stuff please tell (and submit docs bug). Here it goes, together with persons responsible for them (from NEWS or commits) where possible: CLI webserver - didn't find any mention in the docs XsltProcessor::setSecurityPrefs($options) and getSecurityPrefs() - Chergu, Nicolas Gregoire RegexIterator::getRegex - Joshua Thijssen ReflectionExtension::isTemporary & isPersistent, ReflectionClass::isCloneable, class ReflectionZendExtension, - Johannes OpenSSL functions: openssl_csr_get_public_key, openssl_csr_get_subject, openssl_decrypt, openssl_dh_compute_key, openssl_digest, openssl_encrypt - shown in the manual as undocumented, additionally for encrypt and decrypt signatures do not match actual state of affairs in 5.4 - options is long, but bool parameter is listed instead. mysql_list_dbs - not documented as deprecated in 5.4 - Andrey mysqli_result - not documented as implementing Traversable - Andrey, Johannes ldap_control_paged_result, ldap_control_paged_result_response - pajoye, scottmac ldap_parse_reference and ldap_parse_result undocumented too, btw `JSON_BIGINT_AS_STRING` constant undocumented - Sara JsonSerializable interface - listed in manual as undocumented - Sara Spoofchecker class - constants and methods are not documented - Scott hex2bin - Scott import_request_variables, define_syslog_variables, session_is_registered, session_register, session_unregister - not documented as removed in 5.4 Ini options allow_call_time_pass_reference, define_syslog_variables, highlight.bg - not documented as removed in 5.4 class_uses - Stefan Magic quotes removal in 5.4 not documented - Pierrick, Pierre Short array notation - Pierre windows_show_crt_warnings INI directive - Pierre `SORT_NATURAL` and `SORT_FLAG_CASE` options for sort functions - Arpad disable_post_data_processing - Gustavo callable type in function args - Hannes SessionHandler class - Arpad Closure::bind and Closure::bindTo - Gustavo but in fact whole Closure class is badly documented Please chip in and document this stuff - especially if you contributed in, but if you want to just help and document somebody else's contribution - I don't think there would be many complaints either :) I've also put it on the wiki for tracking: https://wiki.php.net/todo/undoc54 -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #55814 — Stas Malyshev — 2011-10-16T02:17:16+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55814 · In reply to: #55734 Hi! > The UPGRADING file is also completely worthless. > I have no idea what is going on, as a dev, nor as a documentor. > Be it traits, closures, or whatever random new parameter or function was added. > When 5.3 came around, I literally had to diff the sources to figure > out what was going on, I am not going through that again. I've sent a separate email about undocumented stuff but I'm kind of confused about UPGRADING file - what should be there and how it is related to NEWS? Should one ad stuff both to NEWS and UPGRADING or I as RM should add stuff from NEWS to UPGRADING later? Do we have process described anywhere? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #55815 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2011-10-16T09:45:37+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55815 · In reply to: #55813 On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > Following Hanness' mail a week or so ago, I went over NEWS and the wiki and > here is the list of undocumented stuff we have now in 5.4. It may be not > complete, so if you know of any other undocumented stuff please tell (and > submit docs bug). Here it goes, together with persons responsible for them > (from NEWS or commits) where possible: > > CLI webserver - didn't find any mention in the docs > http://php.net/manual/en/features.commandline.webserver.php > > XsltProcessor::**setSecurityPrefs($options) and getSecurityPrefs() - > Chergu, Nicolas Gregoire > RegexIterator::getRegex - Joshua Thijssen > ReflectionExtension::**isTemporary & isPersistent, > ReflectionClass::isCloneable, class ReflectionZendExtension, - Johannes > I would also like some documentation for ReflectionClass::newInstanceWithoutConstructor albeit it's name is pretty explicit. - Sebastian http://docs.php.net/manual/en/reflectionclass.newinstancewithoutconstructor.php -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --- ## #55817 — Pierre Joye — 2011-10-16T10:40:56+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55817 · In reply to: #55814 hi, > Hi! > > > > […] > > I've sent a separate email about undocumented stuff but I'm kind of confused > about UPGRADING file - what should be there and how it is related to NEWS? > Should one ad stuff both to NEWS and UPGRADING or I as RM should add stuff > from NEWS to UPGRADING later? Do we have process described anywhere? You (David and you) should ensure that the UPGRADING guide is kept updated. I would say that's not your role to do everything but to ask the respective developers to add notes in there. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #55835 — Hannes Magnusson — 2011-10-17T10:24:05+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/55001#55835 · In reply to: #55817 > hi, > > > > […] > > You (David and you) should ensure that the UPGRADING guide is kept > updated. I would say that's not your role to do everything but to ask > the respective developers to add notes in there. The UPGRADING file has usually served as a base for php.net/migration53 for example. Its been a quite confusing topic though, stuff added in bugfix release.. should that go there too? The migration docs generally list everything from BC issues to new params constants and functions and classes within the .0 release, but after that... not so much. We should probably try to come up with some RFC on this to try to keep it consistent. I also want to introduce a "changelog" for the docs, so users can actually see what has changed and whats new. That would help users to see new features, discover new things, and also make it easier for them to see if they should re-read a certain page after a for example doc security fix... -Hannes --- Next page: https://externals.io/message/55001.md?page=2