Derick Rethans wrote:
> On 11 and 12 November a bunch of us had a developers meeting in Paris,
> discussing the things we want to do for PHP 6. Partly because of the
> Unicode support, but we also discussed the items on "Rasmus' wishlist"
> and a lot of other items. I made a report of the discussio
Hi,
Recently I have sent one feature request to the bugs list (
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=35170 )
I would appreciate very much if somebody will deal with problem (feature
request).
I think that the correction I proposed will be very useful and will
improve the PHP.
I believe that for d
Set of tests available too now:
http://libssh2.org/patches/labeled_break_tests.tgz
It can be untarred from the root of a PHP dist and it'll unfold into
Zend/tests/break/
http://libssh2.org/patches/labeled_break.diff
A few notes about the implementation:
* The parser is modified slightly to
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
Would my response have been better if it had had a smiley attached?
The issue that Rowan brought up had been discussed multiple times before
I think the number of unreasonable requests and questions would drop
significantly if there were some kind of design digest, or
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Stefan Walk wrote:
Exactly. PHP chokes on
And just because of that we're removing those too. >:)
--Jani
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Indeed why not? Instead of adding new amazing features, I'd be just as
happy if all of the function names where standardised.
I know its not going to happen, but then, you should know that by now,
I'm not goint to stop suggesting it...
On 11/24/05, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On W
On 23/11/05, Edin Kadribasic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marcus Boerger wrote:
> > Hello Stefan,
> >
> >"<%=" is of course also conflicting the XML specs since "<"
> > must be followed by a "!" is we are in a DTD context. Or a "?"
> > to start a processing instruction or a valid element name.
Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Stefan,
>
>"<%=" is of course also conflicting the XML specs since "<"
> must be followed by a "!" is we are in a DTD context. Or a "?"
> to start a processing instruction or a valid element name. And
> "%" cannot start an element name.
When we are talking about
http://libssh2.org/patches/labeled_break.diff
A few notes about the implementation:
* The parser is modified slightly to catch T_BREAK T_LNUMBER ';' and T_BREAK
T_STRING ';' specifically. This is in-line with the decision to remove the
ability to jump to variable targets. e.g. `break $foo;` wil
Hi,
> hey cool stuff! Any chance you could publish this or make
> it a PEAR class or put it into the newly created Reflection
> extension as example?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/phpclassbrowser/
Its in CVS at sourceforge. (Still haven't gotten around to reading up on how to
create fil
Hello Jared,
hey cool stuff! Any chance you could publish this or make it a PEAR class
or put it into the newly created Reflection extension as example?
best regards
marcus
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 12:50:25 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> This has been do-able in PHP5 for somewhile, (wrot
Hello Jochem,
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 6:52:17 PM, you wrote:
> Christian Schneider wrote:
>> Jochem Maas wrote:
>>
>>> so I can only assume that the ability to declare ctor signatures have
>>> been left in because they do no harm regardless of whether it is
>>> 'correct'.
>>
>>
>> If I
Hello Stefan,
"<%=" is of course also conflicting the XML specs since "<"
must be followed by a "!" is we are in a DTD context. Or a "?"
to start a processing instruction or a valid element name. And
"%" cannot start an element name.
marcus
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 5:07:22 PM, you wrote:
Christian Schneider wrote:
Jochem Maas wrote:
so I can only assume that the ability to declare ctor signatures have
been left in because they do no harm regardless of whether it is
'correct'.
If I remember correctly then one reason to have constructor signatures
is for object factories: Yo
> Anyway, I see only one use case for interface constructors:
...
I also thought about that:
$whichClass = ...
if ($whichClass instanceof ISomehowConstructable)
$foo = new $whichClass(...);
would even work without reflection, but of coure would require to change
instanceof a little, too
Christian Schneider wrote:
abstract static protected function __construct(CrazySettings $s,
CrazyView $v);
Static doesn't really make sense as interfaces as object instance related.
Well actually the constructor is implicitly a static function too. The
whole allowing/disallowing constru
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 16:40, Christian Schneider wrote:
> As far as named parameters go: I can live with the decision as we use
> our own patch for that anyway
Christian,
Where are the details on this patch?
Kind Regards,
--
Ian P. Christian ~ http://pookey.co.uk
--
PHP Internals - P
Derick Rethans wrote:
discussing the things we want to do for PHP 6. Partly because of the
The whole list of decisions is very reasonable, congratulations!
My only gripe is about the removal of curly braces for string offsets: I
very much like the way you undeprecated var ('As there is no rea
Jochem Maas wrote:
so I can only assume that the ability to declare ctor signatures have
been left in because they do no harm regardless of whether it is
'correct'.
If I remember correctly then one reason to have constructor signatures
is for object factories: You specify that an object to be
On 22/11/05, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello folks!
>
> On 11 and 12 November a bunch of us had a developers meeting in Paris,
> discussing the things we want to do for PHP 6. Partly because of the
> Unicode support, but we also discussed the items on "Rasmus' wishlist"
> and a lo
Note: this post contains a 'complaint' but its not aimed
at any one in particular, especially not Rasmus as he doesn't give
the impression of being much of an OO proponent at heart, and because
he repeatly seems to err on the side of practicality and caution
(as opposed to correctness for correctn
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Sergio A. Kessler wrote:
> [about namespaces]
> >
> > But many people request too. You don't *have* to use the new features if you
> > hate them.
>
> derick, this is the same song that C++ people sing along...
>
> and is a *very* flawed reason for adding mo' features...
ye
Derick Rethans wrote:
[about namespaces]
But many people request too. You don't *have* to use the new features if
you hate them.
derick, this is the same song that C++ people sing along...
and is a *very* flawed reason for adding mo' features...
regards,
/sak
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runti
Hi,
This has been do-able in PHP5 for somewhile, (wrote a reflection
browser while ago to show such things)
http://www.ren.dotgeek.org/classbrowser/?class=DOMCdataSection
Jared
> Here's an idea for the maintainer of the Reflection API, to
> be able to view the class a method is define
Nope, sorry, I'll do my homework next time.
Bob
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 12:39 AM
> To: Bob Silva
> Cc: 'internals'
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Reflection API idea
>
> Hello Bob,
>
> have you looked at head
Hello Bob,
have you looked at head output of Reflection lately? I guess that contains
all you want, right?
marcus
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 5:19:10 AM, you wrote:
> Here's an idea for the maintainer of the Reflection API, to be able to view
> the class a method is defined in (if not overr
I think that automatic __toString calling for (string)$obj,
$obj.'somestring' and so on is urgent compared to other features and
should be available in 5.1.1 or at latest - 5.2.0. I suppose that
"object #XX" is not useful for anyone programming in PHP.
On 22/11/05, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED
27 matches
Mail list logo
