On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Wez Furlong wrote:
> Commits to the 4.3 branch are now denied by the pre-commit hooks.
Great :)
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.ph
Xuefer wrote:
>
> +1 for "ifsetor"
> but btw, "ifsetor" might be complex for non-englishs. "default" might be
> better.
'default' is a reserved word.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
(recall: eliminating warning is as important as dealing with errors. u
can't figure out which warning is relative to the problem if there's
too many noise warning.)
all of u in -internals is expert. u might have forgot how ppl learn
php. "simple" is the spirit of php, but is adding feature always
Commits to the 4.3 branch are now denied by the pre-commit hooks.
--Wez.
On 6/6/05, Wez Furlong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've found a patch that might allow this; if I'm feeling motivated
> tonight, I'll evaluate it and consider adding it to our customized cvs
> pserver.
>
> --Wez.
>
> On 6
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 15:47, Jared Williams wrote:
> >
> > JC>>Since when did anyone care that we were giving users
> > enough rope to
> > JC>>hang themselves with?
> >
> > There's rope and rope. Giving rope is one thing, giving a
> > pack of explosives is another.
> >
> > JC>>I don't think w
my vote:
-1 goto
+1 ifsetor
--
http://www.locknet.ro
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
> JC>>Since when did anyone care that we were giving users
> enough rope to
> JC>>hang themselves with?
>
> There's rope and rope. Giving rope is one thing, giving a
> pack of explosives is another.
>
> JC>>I don't think we should worry ourselves with people who
> don't know
> JC>>how to
Hello Magnus,
Monday, June 6, 2005, 6:41:49 PM, you wrote:
> On Monday 06 June 2005 11.01, Christian Schneider wrote:
>> Magnus Määttä wrote:
>> > And the much needed goto for the next one (5.2/5.5/6.0 or
>> > whatever it will be) ?
>>
>> Much needed? Matter of taste as lots of existing PHP code
Hello Sean,
I should have clarified this -- The following is how I do it all the
time. It's just a bit longhanded for something that is done so
often.
$email = (isset($_GET['email']) ? $_GET['email'] : '');
It get's even messier when you want to get something like this:
$value = (i
JC>>Since when did anyone care that we were giving users enough rope to hang
JC>>themselves with?
There's rope and rope. Giving rope is one thing, giving a pack of
explosives is another.
JC>>I don't think we should worry ourselves with people who don't know how
JC>>to code and abuse language con
I've found a patch that might allow this; if I'm feeling motivated
tonight, I'll evaluate it and consider adding it to our customized cvs
pserver.
--Wez.
On 6/6/05, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>
> > Can we close PHP_4_3 branch through AC
> No, I don't propose that. I am just concerned once you put goto there it
> would be abused in all kinds of "creative" ways and would make a mess out
> of the code.
Since when did anyone care that we were giving users enough rope to hang
themselves with?
0x19)?chr
(${0x32}):${
chr(0xD)}[${0x3
On Jun 6, 2005, at 1:46 PM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
George Schlossnagle wrote:
Why do you need to use OO to use exceptions?
Maybe "throw new Exception;" is already too much OO for somebody's
mother because you create a new object of the Exception class here.
I'm pretty sure I can con
George Schlossnagle wrote:
> Why do you need to use OO to use exceptions?
Maybe "throw new Exception;" is already too much OO for somebody's
mother because you create a new object of the Exception class here.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Ke
Ok I'm registering because I am now a new MDB2_Driver_mssql maintainer and I
would need cvs access to update, commit my stuff when I code a bugfix or new
feature.
Thank you very much.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Jason Garber wrote:
If there was any way to accommodate this with userland PHP code, I
would have already done it. However it is an engine level function
that has to be added to the core of PHP.
For the record, I also find ifsetor useful, but what you want can be
accomplished like this:
Hello Andi,
I have to strongly disagree with your ifsetor() comment. the use
for ifsetor is in no way eliminated with filtering.
I write very clean code and have taught all my developers to write
very clean code. We run the latest stable PHP version with maximum
error reporting. We d
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> Can we close PHP_4_3 branch through ACLs?
No, this is not possible unfortunately.
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: htt
On Monday 06 June 2005 18.42, James Aylett wrote:
> Magnus Määttä wrote:
> > I have small example of "code" that would be so much easier to
> > understand and follow with goto..
> >
> > I removed all actual code to make it a bit shorter, it's actually
> > around 150-200 lines long, just this outer
Magnus Määttä wrote:
> I have small example of "code" that would be so much easier to
> understand and follow with goto..
>
> I removed all actual code to make it a bit shorter, it's actually
> around 150-200 lines long, just this outer for-loop..
>
> for (...; ...; ...) {
> for (...; ...; ...
On Monday 06 June 2005 11.01, Christian Schneider wrote:
> Magnus Määttä wrote:
> > And the much needed goto for the next one (5.2/5.5/6.0 or
> > whatever it will be) ?
>
> Much needed? Matter of taste as lots of existing PHP code proves
> :-) What happens if you goto into a loop? I'd rather avoid
Quoting Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Personally I am quite ambivalent about adding goto. What I am not
ambivalent about is adding anything that will be a nightmare to support.
If the goto patch can be done in such a way that there is absolutely no
way that it will cause weird stack corr
Personally I am quite ambivalent about adding goto. What I am not
ambivalent about is adding anything that will be a nightmare to support.
If the goto patch can be done in such a way that there is absolutely no
way that it will cause weird stack corruptions or other scope issues
when people use i
Can we close PHP_4_3 branch through ACLs?
-Andrei
On Jun 6, 2005, at 1:27 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
Hello!
I just created the PHP_4_4 branch as nobody disagreed with this.
PHP_4_3
should no longer be used to commit fixes too. Please do not add new
features to the code in the PHP_4_4 bran
On Monday 06 June 2005 16.35, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> LS>>your arguments are acedemic. in the real world the goto label
> will be LS>>relatively easily found, whereas finding the catch
> block that will in the
>
> I'm not concerning about you missing your label. I'm concerned
> about you jumpin
On Jun 6, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
MM>>Exceptions ? No thank you, even worse then continue/break..
Why is it worse? That's something that I don't understand - why
people
think exceptions, which have clear structured mechanism of
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
LS>>> No, they do not. You can not exception to abritrary point of the code. You
LS>>
LS>>but it can be a "relatively" arbitrary point in the sense that the catch can
LS>>be endless lines of code away ... effectively making a search a very tedious
LS>>process.
Ever tri
OI>>break/continue
OI>>- little confusing syntax: break terminate executing labeled statement
OI>>and transfer control to the next statement.
I can see a value in this one, if it can be implemented correctly, meaning
it won't allow just jumping around but only exiting blocks and label would
be
LS>>> No, they do not. You can not exception to abritrary point of the code.
You
LS>>
LS>>but it can be a "relatively" arbitrary point in the sense that the catch can
LS>>be endless lines of code away ... effectively making a search a very tedious
LS>>process.
Ever tried to use IDE which handles
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Any feature can and as experience proves it to be the case, will be
> abused. Plenty of people make horrid abuse of exceptions, but we still
> went ahead an added them anyway since they have many practical and
> useful applications. Same is true for goto, some people will
Derick Rethans wrote:
>>I think, better (cleaner) way is extend 'break' and 'continue' to accept
>>string as label name in local scope. (like java :)).
>>
>>Implement 'goto' with possibility to jump anywhere is a step backwards...
>
>
> It's exactly the same as "break "... goto can only jump in t
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
LS>>the safe guard is that you only have:
LS>># static labels to jump to
That's not a safeguard, since you still can jump to any label.
it is combined with the fact that you cannot jump out of the scope ..
should make it really easy to do a simple search for the labe
LS>>the safe guard is that you only have:
LS>># static labels to jump to
That's not a safeguard, since you still can jump to any label.
LS>># that you can only jump in the current scope
This is a safeguard, buit not enough of that, since you still can jump
into various control blocks.
LS>>now
goto : -1
PHP is a structured scripting language.
The "goto" statement will bring a lot of missunderstanding and special
casees.
Only one example:
function foo () {
...
goto LABEL;
foreach($a as $v) {
...
LABEL:
...
}
}
I can add several examples more.
ifsetor: -1
I don't
On Monday 06 June 2005 15.25, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> MM>>Exceptions ? No thank you, even worse then continue/break..
>
> Why is it worse? That's something that I don't understand - why
> people think exceptions, which have clear structured mechanism of
> using them, are worse than goto which h
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
MM>>Exceptions ? No thank you, even worse then continue/break..
Why is it worse? That's something that I don't understand - why people
think exceptions, which have clear structured mechanism of using them, are
worse than goto which has no safeguards at all and allows
DR>>Because not everybody and their mother uses OO.
So? If you don't use classes and inheritance, it's against the law to use
try/catch? What's the logic in this?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ +972-3-6139665 ext.115
--
PHP Internals -
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> MM>>Exceptions ? No thank you, even worse then continue/break..
>
> Why is it worse? That's something that I don't understand - why people
> think exceptions, which have clear structured mechanism of using them, are
> worse than goto which has no
MM>>Exceptions ? No thank you, even worse then continue/break..
Why is it worse? That's something that I don't understand - why people
think exceptions, which have clear structured mechanism of using them, are
worse than goto which has no safeguards at all and allows to do a lot of
messy things
Hi Stanislav,
On Monday 06 June 2005 13.33, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> I'm not sure why goto should be needed after many years of
> successful life without it. I think parametrized break/continue
> takes care of all cases when I would need goto in C, so I think
> goto is not needed.
People are
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
IA>>Ok, so you propose that people start using exceptions for OO and
IA>>procedural code just because they are "there"? One major problem with
No, I don't propose that. I am just concerned once you put goto there
it would be abused in all kinds
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
IA>>Ok, so you propose that people start using exceptions for OO and
IA>>procedural code just because they are "there"? One major problem with
No, I don't propose that. I am just concerned once you put goto there it
would be abused in all kinds of "creative" ways and
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
No, I don't propose that. I am just concerned once you put goto there it
would be abused in all kinds of "creative" ways and would make a mess out
of the code.
so I guess the only additional danger I can see from goto is someone
jumping from goto A to goto B and th
IA>>A recursive function, takes a mere 13087 iterations to result in a crash and
IA>>this is a very basic example.
IA>>$i = 0;
IA>>function a() { global $i; echo ++$i."\n"; a(); }
IA>>a();
IA>>
IA>>A more complex function could take as little as 1k iterations.
Well, if so, PHP needs to be fixed to
I agree
I give it a -1 too.
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:04:56AM GMT, Sascha Schumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] said
the following:
> > So +1 from me. (wasn't there a patch for this already somewhere?)
>
> PHP has enough horrid language misfeatures. It does not need
> another one. Seeing th
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
IA>>Most common solution people choose to emulate exceptions often ends up being
IA>>recursive functions, those as well know in many instances result in crashes.
Eh? Only case I know when recursion may result in crash is if it's endless
recursion (or recursion for all
I couldn't agree with you more. This would be a great new feature for PHP
5.1 (which it probably won't be), or 5.2.
Ron
"Steven Wittens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi,
>
> As a PHP user I'm sadly confronted daily with PHP's lack of proper
> Unicode support. PH
On 6/5/05, Magnus Määttä <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And the much needed goto for the next one (5.2/5.5/6.0 or whatever it
> will be) ?
+1 (for the "limited" version that Sara and Andi already worked out
last time this came up)
> And please, no "this and that professor told me/wrote/said goto is
Quoting Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
IA>>Most common solution people choose to emulate exceptions often
ends up being
IA>>recursive functions, those as well know in many instances result
in crashes.
Eh? Only case I know when recursion may result in crash is if it's endless
recursio
IA>>Most common solution people choose to emulate exceptions often ends up being
IA>>recursive functions, those as well know in many instances result in crashes.
Eh? Only case I know when recursion may result in crash is if it's endless
recursion (or recursion for all effective purposes can be co
Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>>finally construct should do that, I think. IMO that's the right solution,
>>not goto's - and anyway if you allow goto only inside same block, what if
>>error condition happens inside other block? Are all your functions flat
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> DR>>We're only talking about a goto that:
> DR>>- can only jump to a static label
> DR>>- can only jump inside the current scope
> DR>>
> DR>>With a parameterized break/continue you still can't just to the "end" of
> DR>>your function to do clean up
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
DR>>which is ugly and already possible anyway).
Using control blocks is no more ugly than using goto's - and thr right way
to do it is using exception handling and finally, IMO.
well exceptions as we have them right now are everything and much much
more than what
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
finally construct should do that, I think. IMO that's the right solution,
not goto's - and anyway if you allow goto only inside same block, what if
error condition happens inside other block? Are all your functions flat
without control blocks? What if exception happens
DR>>We're only talking about a goto that:
DR>>- can only jump to a static label
DR>>- can only jump inside the current scope
DR>>
DR>>With a parameterized break/continue you still can't just to the "end" of
DR>>your function to do clean ups (unless you wrap it in a control block
finally construc
Upgrade imagick with 2 functions
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> MR>>expose the ugliness of what would _appear_ to be a handy feature. I
> MR>>don't pack any weight on this list so if someone with a -1 on this
> MR>>feature would like to kick it up to -2 I'd appreciate it.
>
> I'm not sure why goto should be ne
MR>>expose the ugliness of what would _appear_ to be a handy feature. I
MR>>don't pack any weight on this list so if someone with a -1 on this
MR>>feature would like to kick it up to -2 I'd appreciate it.
I'm not sure why goto should be needed after many years of successful life
without it. I t
On Jun 6, 2005, at 3:09 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Jani Taskinen wrote:
And the much needed goto for the next one (5.2/5.5/6.0 or
whatever it
will be) ?
So +1 from me. (wasn't there a patch for this already somewhere?)
For me too: +1.
+1 here as well.
George
--
Olivier Hill wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm +1 on the goto patch aswell. What was the consent on the
> limit of a goto statement? Should it be able to jump outside
> a control block?
> Can it jump anywhere?
And there are many more questions and issues just like this that
expose the ugliness of what would
Animated .gif support? :)
- Original Message -
From: "Pierre-Alain Joye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Zülke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.1
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 23:57:40 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Zülke) wrote:
> How abo
Magnus Määttä wrote:
And the much needed goto for the next one (5.2/5.5/6.0 or whatever it will be) ?
Much needed? Matter of taste as lots of existing PHP code proves :-)
What happens if you goto into a loop? I'd rather avoid this mess.
-1 from me.
- Chris
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Deve
Hello!
I just created the PHP_4_4 branch as nobody disagreed with this. PHP_4_3
should no longer be used to commit fixes too. Please do not add new
features to the code in the PHP_4_4 branch, only critical fixes should
go in there. If unsure, please check with the internals@ mailinglist
first.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Ondrej Ivanič wrote:
> Jani Taskinen wrote:
> >> And the much needed goto for the next one (5.2/5.5/6.0 or whatever it
> >> will be) ?
> > I've found a lot of cases where this would have been nice to have
> > and simplified the code too..
> >
> > So +1 from me. (wa
Jani Taskinen wrote:
>> And the much needed goto for the next one (5.2/5.5/6.0 or whatever it
>> will be) ?
> I've found a lot of cases where this would have been nice to have
> and simplified the code too..
>
> So +1 from me. (wasn't there a patch for this already somewhere?)
When I
PHP 5 Bug Database summary - http://bugs.php.net
Num Status Summary (370 total including feature requests)
===[*General Issues]==
27372 Verified parse error loading browscap.ini at apache startup (new parser
required)
32967 Open
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> > And the much needed goto for the next one (5.2/5.5/6.0 or whatever it
> > will be) ?
>
> I've found a lot of cases where this would have been nice to have
> and simplified the code too..
>
> So +1 from me. (wasn't there a patch for this al
So +1 from me. (wasn't there a patch for this already somewhere?)
PHP has enough horrid language misfeatures. It does not need
another one. Seeing the potential damage of adding goto to
the language, I can only give it a -1.
- Sascha
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Developm
PHP 4 Bug Database summary - http://bugs.php.net
Num Status Summary (667 total including feature requests)
===[*Directory/Filesystem functions]
33241 Open copy() sometime fail with permission error
69 matches
Mail list logo
