Seems the majority prefers "goto".
I'll change "jump" to "goto" tomorrow in case of no serious objections.
Thanks. Dmitry.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
With an empty.php file 0 bytes long I get:
PHP 5.1.3-dev (no opcode cache, variables_order=GP) 1168-1225 req/sec
over 5 runs of 1 requests each.
PHP 4.4 same config 1897-1951 req/sec
Just to make sure, since in this case an extra header would make a big
difference, the raw headers that
What are the results you're getting on an empty script? I'm just
curious whether it's execution speed or startup speed where you are
seeing the big hit. There were changes in both which might have
slowed things down. Another reason to be more careful re: bloat :)
Anid
At 08:34 PM 3/12/2006, R
We have a bit of a performance disconnect between 4.4 and 5.1 still. I
was doing some benchmarking today just as a sanity check on some APC
work I have been doing lately and came up with this:
http://lerdorf.com/php/bm.html
You can ignore the apc/eaccelerator stuff. Those numbers are not
Answering my own question/observation, the following workarounds allow
use of char* name="myclass"; and overbuffered char name[100] = "myclass";
both of which fail normally since INIT_CLASS_ENTRY uses sizeof() not strlen()
// for various char* or string params
char* phpclassname = "myclass";
char
I was surprised to find that my class entry failed when I tried to pass the
class name as a parameter. Two common styles (char *myclassname = "myclass";
and (over-buffered) char myclassname[100] = "myclass";) both fail with
INIT_CLASS_ENTRY for a reason that becomes apparent when you look
at the
Hello bertrand,
just to clearify this, we don't do voting here becuase it is impossible to
bring a majority of php users here or decide who is important and so on.
Thus we are only doing surveys here even if called voting. And i assume that
all people on this list have better things to do than i
Let's just call it goto and be done with it. It seems that for the
people who will use this feature "goto" name will cause the least amount
of "WTF".
Ilia
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Can't you g(irl|uy)s install somewhere a right pool so people can simply
vote ?
With some identification, so you can sort out common people, registered,
core, etc... results ?
I mean for simple choices e.g. goto|jump|both,
otherwise, as was recently proposed, RFC are certainly nice and more
ef
Courtesy of Sara Golemon and a helpful tutorial on the
impact of the 'static' keyword in function declaration.
Greatly appreciated.
Andrew.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Lukas, that's extremely odd. Check history! (when most of the core team
agreed on jump originally, for a start). I've seen five very vocal pro
'goto's here and NO good reasons given for it. There are several good
reasons against.
The result of the vote in this thread is clear. No matter what
I'm fine with goto too.
At 02:40 AM 3/12/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Dmitry,
my advice just like Wez' is to name it 'goto' because that is what it
is. (to drop the 2nd part that might have confused you).
best regards
marcus
p.s.: To make me happy you'd have to drop the mess
Sunday,
On 3/12/06, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lukas, that's extremely odd. Check history! (when most of the core team
> agreed on jump originally, for a start). I've seen five very vocal pro
> 'goto's here and NO good reasons given for it. There are several good
> reasons against.
The res
Dmitry, maybe I have overlooked a single post, but I have yet to see a
single post favoring "jump" over "goto". The common decision is here and
it is "goto".
Lukas, that's extremely odd. Check history! (when most of the core team
agreed on jump originally, for a start). I've seen five very
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
We already have exceptions, so we don't need another longjump :)
"jump" or "goto"? Just make common decision and I will change it.
Dmitry, maybe I have overlooked a single post, but I have yet to see a
single post favoring "jump" over "goto". The common decision is here a
Hello Dmitry,
my advice just like Wez' is to name it 'goto' because that is what it
is. (to drop the 2nd part that might have confused you).
best regards
marcus
p.s.: To make me happy you'd have to drop the mess
Sunday, March 12, 2006, 10:44:19 AM, you wrote:
> We already have exceptions, s
We already have exceptions, so we don't need another longjump :)
"jump" or "goto"? Just make common decision and I will change it.
Thanks. Dmitry.
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 1:22 AM
> To: Wez Furlong
> Cc: Dmitr
17 matches
Mail list logo
