PHP-Gtk-docs.
Steph Fox sent me to here.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Please could someone activate an account for Christian? He just wrote the
documentation for an entire PHP-GTK extension!
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Weiske [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 26 February 2004 11:45
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] CVS Account Request:
Ferdinand Beyer wrote:
IMO we are trying to force a strict programming here that is
incompatible with PHP's loose character.
Yeah, I absolutely agree with that. The more I think about it the more
it also seems like this change is going to break a *lot* of PHP code out
there. Especially the e
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Timm,
i had the same expirience today too. And also for me it makes not much
sense. The constructor shouldn't check inheritance rules. And as a
consequence maybe interfaces shouldn't allow constructors.
Does inheritance include visibility rules? ;)
Andrey
--
PHP Inter
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:56:08 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andi Gutmans) wrote:
> Nope. I don't have time to add one right now...
> Pierre got time? :)
> If not I'll try and do it within the next few days.
Here it is.
I put it in tests/lang/foreach_with_new_object_001.phpt
hth
pierre
--
PHP Inter
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:02:38 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pierre-Alain Joye) wrote:
> Here it is.
>
> I put it in tests/lang/foreach_with_new_object_001.phpt
take #2, .txt :)
--TEST--
foreach() with foreach($o->mthd()->arr)
--FILE--
c()->a as $value) {
print "$value\n";
}
--EXPECT--
1
2
3
4
5
At the risk of making a complete fool of myself, I'd like to ask the smarter
brains than me to checkout the current logic in the implementation of
Iterator classes and foreach().
The current logic of foreach( $obj as $key => $val ) { ... } where $obj
implements Iterator, is:
for($obj->rewind(); $
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Steph wrote:
> Please could someone activate an account for Christian? He just wrote the
> documentation for an entire PHP-GTK extension!
Done.
-Andrei
"The weather we gets is the weather we got,
So we're gonna have weather, whether or not."
~ Wendell Hall, nineteen
Hello,
in the latest snapshot i found some very important differences to the php5
beta 4 version concerning the behavior of inherited classes. please look at
the following example:
the output is:
Fatal error: Declaration of MyClass::test() must be compatible with that of
MyParent::test() in
I say keep compatibility. If you want to enforce this, then declare an
interface. That is after all why they exist.
Walt
> Hello,
>
> in the latest snapshot i found some very important differences to the php5
> beta 4 version concerning the behavior of inherited classes. please look at
> the f
Walter A. Boring IV wrote:
> I say keep compatibility. If you want to enforce this, then declare an
> interface. That is after all why they exist.
>
> Walt
...
Would be nice if you could give a simple example - i really have problems
working with interfaces :(
My problem was to design a files
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Vivian Steller wrote:
> Fatal error: Declaration of MyClass::test() must be compatible with that of
> MyParent::test() in ... on line 3
>
>
> I think that this is a nice feature in the face of "compatibility", but may
> cause in a complete restructure of existing class trees.
On Feb 26, 2004, at 1:49 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
You are breaking the isA relationship. We fixed this so that from now
on, people will not make such mistakes anymore (I think it's the right
way to go, so that we don't leave broken functionality around).
You can enable compatibility mode to make
Quoting Vivian Steller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Walter A. Boring IV wrote:
>
> > I say keep compatibility. If you want to enforce this, then declare an
> > interface. That is after all why they exist.
> >
> > Walt
> ...
>
> Would be nice if you could give a simple example - i really have proble
Hello Andrey,
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 1:08:19 PM, you wrote:
> Marcus Boerger wrote:
>> Hello Timm,
>>
>> i had the same expirience today too. And also for me it makes not much
>> sense. The constructor shouldn't check inheritance rules. And as a
>> consequence maybe interfaces shouldn't al
Hello Philip,
have a look at it's dokumentation: ext/spl/spl.php
there you'll find that hasMore() needs to be checked before an access to
key() or current() can be done. Hence it's meaning is somewhat like
isValid().
regards
marcus
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 4:53:50 PM, you wrote:
> At the ri
Thanks Marcus
Looking at the documentation, the comments and method name (for hasMore())
do not have the same meaning - the comment is saying 'does the current
element exist?' and the method name says 'are there any more elements?'.
This makes the api very ambiguous - hasMore() and isValid() have
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Philip Fletcher wrote:
> Thanks Marcus
>
> Looking at the documentation, the comments and method name (for hasMore())
> do not have the same meaning - the comment is saying 'does the current
> element exist?' and the method name says 'are there any more elements?'.
>
> This m
Sorry for follow-up to myself, but it would be somewhat easier to just
rename hasMore() to isValid() and then implement hasMore() after PHP5 goes
gold.
Philip Fletcher wrote:
> Whilst I appreciate adding an isValid() method to the Iterator interface
> is not trivial (and I am loath to suggest a c
Hello Philip,
just to make it clear. hasMore() would be the exact same then isValid()
only the name would change. The semantic is already what you refer to as
isValid.
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 9:43:40 PM, you wrote:
> Sorry for follow-up to myself, but it would be somewhat easier to just
> r
Hi Marcus
Yes, the current implementation of hasMore() has an identical semantic to
isValid().
The generally understood semantic of isValid() and hasMore() are quite
different - hence the need for the rename.
Regards
Philip
Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Philip,
>
> just to make it clear. has
Hello Philip,
Thursday, February 26, 2004, 10:05:09 PM, you wrote:
> Hi Marcus
> Yes, the current implementation of hasMore() has an identical semantic to
> isValid().
> The generally understood semantic of isValid() and hasMore() are quite
> different - hence the need for the rename.
As a sid
Marcus Boerger wrote:
> As a side note: There is no generally understood hasMore().
I strongly disagree - the Java Iterator has a hasNext() method which is the
exact sementic of hasMore().
> Though there
> is isDone() and hasMore() is sometimes used/implemented as !isDone(). The
> main problem
Hey all,
I think I have a fix for the problems in get_browser() as per the bug
report. (#27291: get_browser matches browscap.ini patterns incorrectly)
Gary Keith, who handles the browscap.ini file we suggest in the
get_browser() docs, uses IIS/ASP's browscap.dll for his benchmarking and I
believ
Hi, after a cvs update i get a segfault with this script:
foo = false;
}
public function start() {
throw new Exception();
}
}
$test = new test();
$test->start();
?>
Backtrace:
#0 0x in ?? ()
#1 0x081656a2 in execute (op_array=0x40206284) at
/home/et/cvs.php.net/php-src/Z
getDocComment();
if(!empty($docs)) {
echo "Has Docs.\n";
}
if(!empty($reflect->getDocComment())) {
echo "Has Docs.\n";
}
?>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]$ php test.php
Fatal error: Can't use method return value in write context in test.php
on line 10
Since when i
At 03:28 26/02/2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Timm,
>
> well for normal methods we must do that. The derived class must support the
> same signature that the base class supports. In you example that would only
> work if the derived method would have
At 07:19 26/02/2004, Hans Lellelid wrote:
Ferdinand Beyer wrote:
IMO we are trying to force a strict programming here that is incompatible
with PHP's loose character.
Yeah, I absolutely agree with that. The more I think about it the more it
also seems like this change is going to break a *lot*
On Feb 26, 2004, at 11:49 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 07:19 26/02/2004, Hans Lellelid wrote:
Ferdinand Beyer wrote:
IMO we are trying to force a strict programming here that is
incompatible with PHP's loose character.
Yeah, I absolutely agree with that. The more I think about it the
more it als
Hi Zeev -
Thanks for the response.
Zeev Suraski wrote:
If you take into account that [a] in PHP, you cannot have more than one
signature for a method in a given class, and you take into account the
fact that [b] your overriding method must be able to satisfy the same
interface as the method it
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, George Schlossnagle wrote:
> This is an enormously huge bc break. Error-prone or not, I would wager
> that 95%+ of all php4 OO code exploits the ability to redefine the
> signature on inherited methods.
So far, I've identified that this breaks more than one important PEAR
pa
Hi,
Both with Apache 1.3 and with Apache 2.0, we could see memory leaks
even if we execute static html pages and not php scripts. This patch
fixes this problem, but is under #ifdef NetWare. See the files:
sapi/apache/mod_php5.c and sapi/apache2filter/sapi_apache2.c.
If it is deemed so, then we can
Ferdinand Beyer wrote:
IMO we are trying to force a strict programming here that is
incompatible with PHP's loose character.
Well, I don't get the point in relation to *constructors* at all.. I
mean, forcing the same signature for each constructor seems unreasonable
to me (_when explicitely cal
IMO we are trying to force a strict programming here that is
incompatible with PHP's loose character.
The following example for instance is very common in Java AVT
programming:
Furthermore with the new implementation we disallow "the PHP way
for overloaded methods" using a variable parameter
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Timm,
>
> well for normal methods we must do that. The derived class must support the
> same signature that the base class supports. In you example that would only
> work if the derived method would have a default parameter for the additional
> pa
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Timm Friebe wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 01:38, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> > Hello Timm,
> [...]
> > > Should work #1, Bar::connect() adds an argument
> > No the sugnature is incompatible. An instance of Foo cannot be called
> > with Bar or Connector's connect() Signature. Henc
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> At 18:54 25/02/2004 -0500, Hans Lellelid wrote:
> >It seems now that PHP is no longer inconsistent, but it also seems that it
> >is impossible to override methods w/ incompatible signature. Is that a
> >correct assessment? This is a pretty big differenc
zend_fetch_obj_w_handler(_zend_execute_data * 0x0012f488, _zend_op *
0x00c68660, _zend_op_array * 0x00c67588, void * * * 0x009742d0) line 2044
+ 12 bytes
execute(_zend_op_array * 0x00c67588, void * * * 0x009742d0) line 1339 + 23
bytes
zend_do_fcall_common_helper(_zend_execute_data * 0x0012f610, _ze
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Fatal error: Can't use function return value in write context in
> C:\Server\htdocs\phpMyAdmin\libraries\common.lib.php on line 307
>
> 307: define('PMA_MYSQL_CLIENT_API', \
> (int)sprintf('%d%02d%02d', $client_api[0], $client_api[1], \
> intval
Hello Timm,
i think this is not completley correct. When reflection is used from a
static member of the class itself it should still work. We have functions
which enable such checks. Could you have a try with those? Also i have
already incorporated the other patch so you need to update the engine
40 matches
Mail list logo
