> I just had a look at zend_compile.c - it seems as if the variable name
> $that was mandantory:
>
> [...]
> || strcmp(CG(active_op_array)->arg_info[0].name, "that")!=0)) {
> zend_error(E_COMPILE_ERROR, "The clone method
> must be declared as __clone($that)");
> [...]
>
> Why sh
At 09:15 PM 2/2/2004 +0100, Ferdinand Beyer wrote:
I like the new way very much but I dislike that PHP tells me how to
name a function parameter. __set() and __get(), for instance, do not
force fixed argument names either, do they?
Some people use their own naming convention for parameters and
will
== Quote from Ferdinand Beyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])'s article
> I like the new way very much but I dislike that PHP tells me how to
> name a function parameter. __set() and __get(), for instance, do not
> force fixed argument names either, do they?
I agree.
Anyway, do we now need $that to be passed
programmers to php
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 2 Feb 2004 at 21:57, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Because it's a good way of retrieving the to-be-cloned object (no
behind
> the scenes magic), and in my opinion, it's cleaner because
everyone's clone
> functions will look the same and it'll make it easier to understand
them.
> Why do you care so
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> At 02:42 PM 2/2/2004 -0500, George Schlossnagle wrote:
> >If you force the parameter to be name $that, what's the point of requiring
> >it to be passed at all? Seems analogous to having all methods be required
> >to pass $this as their first parameter.
>
On Feb 2, 2004, at 2:57 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 02:42 PM 2/2/2004 -0500, George Schlossnagle wrote:
If you force the parameter to be name $that, what's the point of
requiring it to be passed at all? Seems analogous to having all
methods be required to pass $this as their first parameter.
Bec
At 02:42 PM 2/2/2004 -0500, George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Feb 2, 2004, at 2:39 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 07:32 PM 2/2/2004 +0100, Ferdinand Beyer wrote:
On 2 Feb 2004 at 14:36, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Clone methods must now be declared as follows:
> function __clone($that)
> {
> }
I just had a lo
Without checking it more thoroughly, I think the former and the latter
should work with both PHP 4 and PHP 5. If you want to be 100% certain then
the latter will definitely work but I think we allowed the former in PHP 4
too (in a hackish way).
Don't sue me if I'm wrong :)
Andi
At 12:05 PM 2/2
On Feb 2, 2004, at 2:39 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 07:32 PM 2/2/2004 +0100, Ferdinand Beyer wrote:
On 2 Feb 2004 at 14:36, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Clone methods must now be declared as follows:
> function __clone($that)
> {
> }
I just had a look at zend_compile.c - it seems as if the variable name
At 06:49 PM 2/2/2004 +, Stephane Drouard wrote:
== Quote from Zeev Suraski ([EMAIL PROTECTED])'s article
> Both are valid points, and they both sound like the same problem from two
> different angles. I think that the best approach would be to first do an
> implicit clone (i.e., 'dumb' copy of
At 07:32 PM 2/2/2004 +0100, Ferdinand Beyer wrote:
On 2 Feb 2004 at 14:36, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Clone methods must now be declared as follows:
> function __clone($that)
> {
> }
I just had a look at zend_compile.c - it seems as if the variable name
$that was mandantory:
[...]
|| strcmp(CG(active_
At 01:26 PM 2/2/2004 -0500, Adam Bregenzer wrote:
On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 13:18, Stephane Drouard wrote:
> Another idea for case 1 could be to be able to call parent::__clone
> even if the class does not implement it and have the bit for bit copy
> (but just for the base class).
I also think a defaul
== Quote from Zeev Suraski ([EMAIL PROTECTED])'s article
> Both are valid points, and they both sound like the same problem from two
> different angles. I think that the best approach would be to first do an
> implicit clone (i.e., 'dumb' copy of all of the elements), and then call
> __clone(), ev
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote:
> moriyoshi Sat Jan 31 17:36:34 2004 EDT
>
> Modified files:
> /php-src NEWS
> /php-src/ext/pcre php_pcre.c php_pcre.h
> Log:
> - Fix bug #27103 (preg_split('//u') incorrectly splits UTF-8 strings into octets)
On 2 Feb 2004 at 14:36, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Clone methods must now be declared as follows:
> function __clone($that)
> {
> }
I just had a look at zend_compile.c - it seems as if the variable name
$that was mandantory:
[...]
|| strcmp(CG(active_op_array)->arg_info[0].name, "that")!=0)) {
On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 13:18, Stephane Drouard wrote:
> Another idea for case 1 could be to be able to call parent::__clone
> even if the class does not implement it and have the bit for bit copy
> (but just for the base class).
I also think a default __clone method that does a bit for bit copy wou
At 20:18 02/02/2004, Stephane Drouard wrote:
== Quote from Zeev Suraski ([EMAIL PROTECTED])'s article
> Andi and I have revisited the __clone() implementation and must agree that
> it wasn't quite right (mainly due to it not working with inheritance).
> We have rewritten it now (major change!!!) be
On 2 Feb 2004 at 14:36, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Using clone directly is now done using
> $replica = clone $src;
> Clone methods must now be declared as follows:
> function __clone($that)
> {
> }
Finally! I've suggested this change several times before
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) but no one was interested
== Quote from Zeev Suraski ([EMAIL PROTECTED])'s article
> Andi and I have revisited the __clone() implementation and must agree that
> it wasn't quite right (mainly due to it not working with inheritance).
> We have rewritten it now (major change!!!) because we didn't want PHP 5 to
> be released w
Stephane,
Andi and I have revisited the __clone() implementation and must agree that
it wasn't quite right (mainly due to it not working with inheritance).
We have rewritten it now (major change!!!) because we didn't want PHP 5 to
be released with a fundamentally flawed mechanism.
Here's our co
Hi:
This continues to slip between the cracks. Can someone please answer it?
Thanks,
--Dan
- Forwarded message from Daniel Convissor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Daniel Convissor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: PHP Internals List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:46:25 -0500
Subjec
Stephane Drouard wrote:
> The following code does not work as expected:
I think it is a very good thing to test these things and
I think it should be turned into phpt tests and added to
the distribution.
- Chris
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http
Hello,
The following code does not work as expected:
foo;
print('[/test]'); // printed: bug
?>
'/get' is not printed, so the throw statement is correctly executed, but '/test' is
printed, so the exception is not correctly "propagated" to the caller.
Note that the exception will be thrown later
Hi,
Included a patch that avoid a zero length allocation in php_init_config when:
- A configuration line like --with-config-file-scan-dir=d:/local/etc is given
- The directory specified doesn't contain any *.ini files
Let me know if I have to create a bug entry for it before postin
I don't understand the question. You can use a multithreaded library with
PHP if you want. That doesn't have anything to do with Apache being
threaded. Or do you mean that the library is guaranteed to be threadsafe?
If so, you may be ok, but you have to be sure that every other library
invol
what if i am loading a library which is multithreaded?
Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Yup
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, ashish b\ wrote:
> hello ,
> is compiling Apache in worker mode really unstable for production purposes?
> Is multithreaded mode of apache really unsafe?
>
> Doumentation of P
Yup
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, ashish b\ wrote:
> hello ,
> is compiling Apache in worker mode really unstable for production purposes?
> Is multithreaded mode of apache really unsafe?
>
> Doumentation of PHP says
> In case you wish to build a multithreaded version of Apache 2.0 you must ove
hello ,
is compiling Apache in worker mode really unstable for production purposes?
Is multithreaded mode of apache really unsafe?
Doumentation of PHP says
In case you wish to build a multithreaded version of Apache 2.0 you must overwrite the
standard MPM-Module prefork either with wor
29 matches
Mail list logo
