Thanks Sara. I'll fix accordingly. Please watch my commits on the
wrappers and make sure I'm doing the right thing.
At 07:40 PM 2/18/2006, Sara Golemon wrote:
I'm nuking safe_mode and I found something odd. In streams,
php_plain_files_unlink() only checks php_check_open_basedir() when
ENFORCE_
I'm nuking safe_mode and I found something odd. In streams,
php_plain_files_unlink() only checks php_check_open_basedir() when
ENFORCE_SAFE_MODE is flagged. I was planning on nuking ENFORCE_SAFE_MODE
completely. Is this a bug? Or should I rename ENFORCE_SAFE_MODE to
ENFORCE_OPEN_BASEDIR?
I
I just saw we have STREAM_DISABLE_OPEN_BASEDIR.
Should I just check if that is 0 and do the open_basedir check in that case?
At 05:02 PM 2/18/2006, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Hey,
I'm nuking safe_mode and I found something odd. In streams,
php_plain_files_unlink() only checks php_check_open_basedir()
Hey,
I'm nuking safe_mode and I found something odd. In streams,
php_plain_files_unlink() only checks php_check_open_basedir() when
ENFORCE_SAFE_MODE is flagged. I was planning on nuking
ENFORCE_SAFE_MODE completely. Is this a bug? Or should I rename
ENFORCE_SAFE_MODE to ENFORCE_OPEN_BASEDIR
As I said, the syntax is quite elegant and the patch isn't too bad either.
However, I do suggest we only add it if people are really convinced
that it'll be used.
Reflection falls into a different category in my opinion, because it
actually allows you to do stuff you couldn't really do before...
Perhaps not many will use it, that doesn't mean it's useful. I don't
have much use of the Reflection stuff either, nor do I see its general
usefulness. That doesn't mean I am against having it in PHP because it
is useful. In the previous thread we already saw where the labelled
break was useful
Your chief argument was that having two ways to do things is intrinsically
perl-ish and un-PHP-like.
My chief argument is that the single existing way isn't user-friendly.
Your secondary argument was that nested breaks are rarely used in PHP
anyway.
I think your secondary argument is directl
In a previous email Steph Fox writes:
could you please re-visit it, evaluate it, discuss it (as opposed
to talking about GOTO, which is unrelated)
Then in this email Steph Fox writes:
nb I think implementing goto/equivalent itself is a fairly bad idea
Says the mouth to the foot, "Pleased t
You talked a lot about goto at the time. You never even looked at this
particular patch, just assumed it was something you'd already said 'no' to.
Please take the time to look again.
- Original Message -
From: "Ilia Alshanetsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steph Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Argh, re-read my first email. I gave my reasoning there...
At 03:11 PM 2/18/2006, Steph Fox wrote:
Erm - I'd consider myself one of 'the devs' as far as that goes.
Perhaps I wasn't very clear.
There is a feature in PHP that could easily be made more
user-friendly, and we have before us a patc
Erm - I'd consider myself one of 'the devs' as far as that goes. Perhaps I
wasn't very clear.
There is a feature in PHP that could easily be made more user-friendly, and
we have before us a patch that could do that.
I'm failing to understand why it's problematic to use it.
- Original Me
In a previous email Steph Fox writes:
>
> could you please re-visit it, evaluate it, discuss it (as opposed
> to talking about GOTO, which is unrelated)
Then in this email Steph Fox writes:
>
> nb I think implementing goto/equivalent itself is a fairly bad idea
Says the mouth to the foot, "Please
Yeah but my point was that even people for who it isn't scary (the
devs) don't use it very much :) It's just something which isn't
needed very often. So we're wasting lots of bandwidth on something
which not many will use anyway :)
Andi
At 02:54 PM 2/18/2006, Steph Fox wrote:
Agreed it's not
Agreed it's not used very much. That's because people like me think it's
scary :) and that's _exactly_ what I was trying to say.
- Original Message -
From: "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steph Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "internals"
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:48 AM
Sub
It's just something which to begin with isn't used that much.
Grep'ed phpweb/ for it and found 0 occurrences of break n; and I
believe the people developing it would be the ones who would know how
to use it.
Andi
At 02:33 PM 2/18/2006, Steph Fox wrote:
I personally find working with numbers d
OK, but there's the option to have two wheels that you don't understand
intuitively or two wheels that you do, and I'm hoping for the two that make
sense to me :)
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Waterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:13 AM
Subject: Re
This one time, at band camp, "Steph Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Seems to be 3rd wheel
> > Also steph, I cannot mail you @zend.com, I get user unknown error
>
> Everyone else's mail comes through OK, so I think that was probably a
> temporary issue.
>
> No idea what '3rd wheel' means...
I personally find working with numbers difficult, which is why I'm wholly in
support of this patch.
I doubt I'm the only PHP user with that issue, due to the 'ease of use' that
allows people with no history of computer science to write useful scripts
(for which, thank you all). But I wouldn't
Seems to be 3rd wheel
Also steph, I cannot mail you @zend.com, I get user unknown error
Everyone else's mail comes through OK, so I think that was probably a
temporary issue.
No idea what '3rd wheel' means...
- Steph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, vi
At 03:02 18/02/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote:
the point is not being able to treat them differently. The point is being
able to distinguish them so the right operation is called.
Erm sorry, but it's exactly the same :)
Zeev
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscri
This one time, at band camp, "Steph Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given that practically everyone who survived the preceding GOTO discussion
> seemed to think it was a good idea at the time, could you please re-visit
> it, evaluate it, discuss it (as opposed to talking about GOTO, which is
I think that in 1997 when break/continue n where implemented it would
have been a nice idea, but at this stage except for being more
elegant than break/continue n it doesn't truly add anything
substantial to PHP (and as you already mentioned it's orthogonal to
the goto discussion). I think havi
I'll avoid re-iterating all of the comments I've said back in December
and simply summarize by saying -1.
Ilia
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Marcus Boerger schrieb:
> helly Sat Feb 18 18:14:46 2006 UTC
>
> Modified files: (Branch: PHP_5_1)
> /php-src/ext/reflection php_reflection.c
> Log:
> - MFH Fix naming inconsistency (providing old name as alias)
Thanks!
--
Sebastian Bergmann
Last night I noticed an inconsistency in the Reflection API, namely
ReflectionParameter::getClass() vs.
ReflectionMethod::getDeclaringClass() and
ReflectionProperty::getDeclaringClass()
I think we should use either getClass() or getDeclaringClass()
consistently (I prefer getClass()).
Guys and guyess,
Sara and Dmitry's patch to introduce labelled breaks was discussed on
internals@ ever-so-briefly at the beginning of December, but there was never
any decision made over it.
Given that practically everyone who survived the preceding GOTO discussion
seemed to think it was a g
26 matches
Mail list logo
