[PHP-DEV] Message ("Your message dated Thu, 3 Aug 2006 01:21:51 -0400...")

Your message dated Thu, 3 Aug 2006 01:21:51 -0400 with subject "Message could not be delivered" has been submitted to the moderator of the TOURBUS list: Tourbus Rider bo zo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/un

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Long awaited line directive

On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 17:14 -0500, Richard Lynch wrote: > On Sat, July 15, 2006 9:47 pm, Robert Cummings wrote: > > This has some really good implications for helping PHP users get the > > line numbers more correct. For instance, from what I gather, my > > template > > engine can use this to dynami

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

On 8/2/06, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello Pierre, if you cannot read stop blaming me. Nobody blamed you. It was Robert and not Christian. And then read carefully again. You might get the connection. If not i am all sorry. There is no relation between our current disagre

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

On Wed, August 2, 2006 5:06 pm, Marcus Boerger wrote: > Hello Richard, > > Wednesday, August 2, 2006, 11:55:45 PM, you wrote: > >> On Wed, August 2, 2006 7:32 am, Zeev Suraski wrote: >>> I believe the problem is that 10 years ago we introduced what can >>> be >>> described as 'loose OO programming'

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Long awaited line directive

On Sat, July 15, 2006 9:47 pm, Robert Cummings wrote: > This has some really good implications for helping PHP users get the > line numbers more correct. For instance, from what I gather, my > template > engine can use this to dynamically generate PHP code from an XML tag > and > when the generated

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Hello Richard, Wednesday, August 2, 2006, 11:55:45 PM, you wrote: > On Wed, August 2, 2006 7:32 am, Zeev Suraski wrote: >> I believe the problem is that 10 years ago we introduced what can be >> described as 'loose OO programming', and we're replacing it (instead >> of augmenting it) with strict

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

On Wed, August 2, 2006 7:32 am, Zeev Suraski wrote: > I believe the problem is that 10 years ago we introduced what can be > described as 'loose OO programming', and we're replacing it (instead > of augmenting it) with strict OO programming. And there are people who actually LIKE the 'loose OO pro

Re: [PHP-DEV] Supporting version specific INI files as well asSAPI specific INI files.

[top-posting since everybody else did...] Call me silly, but, really, why is it so tricky in Apache/PHP that you can't somehow convince that LoadModule/AddModule thingie to use 'php51' or 'whatever-i-want' for different versions, so that then you can just use different mime types for all the versi

RE: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

> From: Soenke Ruempler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > BUT let derived constructors change parameters > a) as constructors are never called from the parent, but > optionally from a child class, it's completely valid IHMO > b) constructors are usally not used in object aggregation / > setters, but

Re: [PHP-DEV] bugs for ex-PHP extension (PECL or dead)

On Sun, July 16, 2006 1:34 pm, Pierre wrote: > In the past months we moved many extensions to PECL. However we keep > their bugs management in bugs.php.net. I would like to move it to PECL > and removed their entry in bugs.php.net. Even if an extension still > exists in PHP 4.4.x, this branche is n

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Hello Pierre, if you cannot read stop blaming me. It was Robert and not Christian. And then read carefully again. You might get the connection. If not i am all sorry. marcus Wednesday, August 2, 2006, 12:41:40 PM, you wrote: > On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 02:42:10 +0200 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Boer

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: Sure, and I agree that we should find a comfortable middleground, I'd just like to see a little less criticism of Marcus and some more civilized discussion. As far as I am concerned, Marcus' approach of Nobody has criticized Marcus work. I have not heard anyone claim t

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Jared Williams wrote: PS: An real-life example from those wo prefer the old behavior would be nice ;-) -soenke Yes, I having a hard time imaging one, other than some quick fix. I'd much rather have some decent refactoring tools. The fact of the matter is you do not need the old behavio

Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding pecl/zip to 5.2

On Wed, July 19, 2006 11:51 am, Marco wrote: >> I would rather move more extensions from core to PECL, than from >> PECL to >> core. > > From my experiences the problem with this is many shared hosts wont > install > non core modules, so the more modules moved from core to pecl the less > flexible

Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding pecl/zip to 5.2

Move enough crucial things to PECL, and they'll start being smart about their install, or they'll start losing customers. Or PHP will become non viable as a language and people with start using ruby on rails ;-) Regards Marco

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Hi, On 8/2/06, Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Zeev Suraski wrote: > I believe the problem is that 10 years ago we introduced what can be > described as 'loose OO programming', and we're replacing it (instead of > augmenting it) with strict OO programming. Sure, and I agree that we sh

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

On Wed, August 2, 2006 4:00 am, Stefan Walk wrote: > For the people who have said "I can not understand why this is a bad > thing": > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liskov_substitution_principle Unless I'm mis-reading pre/post condition strictures... Given PHP's cheerfully acceptance of additiona

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

At 20:06 02/08/2006, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: Zeev Suraski wrote: I believe the problem is that 10 years ago we introduced what can be described as 'loose OO programming', and we're replacing it (instead of augmenting it) with strict OO programming. Sure, and I agree that we should find a comfor

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

On Wed, August 2, 2006 5:30 am, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: > Ron Korving wrote: > >> So, my suggestion is this: why not support function overloading in >> PHP6, > > because in PHPs dynamicly typed world this would require runtime > checks *on every single function call* as things can't be resolved >

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

On Tue, August 1, 2006 4:41 pm, Marcus Boerger wrote: > it is about any signature that has default values or type > hints or > pass by reference info. Specialized functions, such as constructors, getters/setters, etc, would seem to me to be a Special Case, since PHP automatically calls the parent

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Zeev Suraski wrote: I believe the problem is that 10 years ago we introduced what can be described as 'loose OO programming', and we're replacing it (instead of augmenting it) with strict OO programming. Sure, and I agree that we should find a comfortable middleground, I'd just like to see a

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

At 18:22 02/08/2006, Pierre wrote: On 8/2/06, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 16:07 +0200, Derick Rethans wrote: > On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > My recommendation: > > - Add a new flag to methods (at the implementation level) that will allow to

Re: [PHP-DEV] zend_u_strtod is slow - possible fix

You'd have to ask Derick. He's the one who added it. :) Note that zend_string_to_double() is not actually used anywhere. -A On Aug 2, 2006, at 2:12 AM, Matt W wrote: Hi Andrei, Thanks for your reply. Yeah, obviously it'll still be slower than with an already-binary string. :-) But I figur

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Hooray! Thank you, Zeev! I'd nearly given up hope on ever moving to a new version of php. (Actually, I'm still doomed for using $this in static calls to an unrelated class, but every bit of avoiding fatal errors helps.) Our code may not be OO, but it's definitely php. ;) Thanks, Todd On Wed,

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

On 8/2/06, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 16:07 +0200, Derick Rethans wrote: > On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > My recommendation: > > - Add a new flag to methods (at the implementation level) that will allow to > > flag them as 'strict' > > Have an

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 16:07 +0200, Derick Rethans wrote: > On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > My recommendation: > > - Add a new flag to methods (at the implementation level) that will allow to > > flag them as 'strict' > > Have an example of what you mean here? Maybe something like t

RE: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

> PS: An real-life example from those wo prefer the old > behavior would be > nice ;-) > > -soenke Yes, I having a hard time imaging one, other than some quick fix. I'd much rather have some decent refactoring tools. Jared -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubs

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Zeev Suraski wrote: > I believe the problem is that 10 years ago we introduced what can be > described as 'loose OO programming', and we're replacing it (instead > of augmenting it) with strict OO programming. That's exactly the problem. We are giving up the "loose" bit of PHP instead of simply ad

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Zeev Suraski wrote: > My recommendation: > - Add a new flag to methods (at the implementation level) that will allow to > flag them as 'strict' Have an example of what you mean here? regards, Derick -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, vis

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Richard Quadling wrote: >> On 02/08/06, Hartmut Holzgraefe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Is function overloading really "an OOP thing"? I think so, I've only ever used it within Delphi, so my POV may be skewed. proving by example? ;) To quote http://www.codeproject.com/soap/RefAndOL.asp "Fo

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

I suppose it could be argued that if you want parameter overloading, then don't declare any parameters to the method and use func_get_args(). This WOULD give the userland code the appearance of parameter overloading. (I'm sure that this was mentioned). But I remember that there where "issues" with

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Zeev Suraski wrote: > My recommendation: > - Add a new flag to methods (at the implementation level) that will allow to > flag them as 'strict' > - In case such a strict method is improperly overridden - error out (E_ERROR) Zeev, ain't your recommendation already covered by interfaces? > - In c

RE: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Zeev Suraski wrote on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 2:33 PM: > I believe the problem is that 10 years ago we introduced what can be > described as 'loose OO programming', and we're replacing it (instead > of augmenting it) with strict OO programming. Yes - and I personally

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Zeev Suraski wrote: ... > > > My recommendation: > - Add a new flag to methods (at the implementation level) that will > allow to flag them as 'strict' > - In case such a strict method is improperly overridden - error out > (E_ERROR) > - In case a non-strict method is improperly overridden - em

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

At 10:41 02/08/2006, Derick Rethans wrote: On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Robert Cummings wrote: > On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 23:41 +0200, Marcus Boerger wrote: > > Hello Michael, > > > > nobody forces you to use OO if you don't like it but it is as it is. And > > It is as it is, but not as it was. PHP4 all

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

I believe the problem is that 10 years ago we introduced what can be described as 'loose OO programming', and we're replacing it (instead of augmenting it) with strict OO programming. Zeev At 02:11 02/08/2006, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: Pierre wrote: On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:52:27 +0200 [EMAIL PROT

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

That was done before, so it could be done again. In principle, there is nothing wrong with refactoring or even rewriting, except time and effort. We have OOP developers wanting OOP things that they've seen working fine in other languages and non-OOP'ers wondering why! As this is a discussion for

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

At 15:49 02/08/2006, Derick Rethans wrote: On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Zeev Suraski wrote: > At 10:41 02/08/2006, Derick Rethans wrote: > > > >Yeah, but PHP 4 didn't have OO support, so that argument doesn't count. > > It sure as hell did. You can hardly call an array with another table with function p

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Richard Quadling wrote: That was done before, so it could be done again. In principle, there is nothing wrong with refactoring or even rewriting, except time and effort. totally changing the underlying type concept in an incompatible way is not refactoring, and even as a rewrite i'm strongly in

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Zeev Suraski wrote: > At 10:41 02/08/2006, Derick Rethans wrote: > > > >Yeah, but PHP 4 didn't have OO support, so that argument doesn't count. > > It sure as hell did. You can hardly call an array with another table with function pointers OO :) regards, Derick -- PHP Int

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

At 12:44 02/08/2006, Lukas Smith wrote: Derick Rethans wrote: On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Lukas Smith wrote: again i feel that people who want to use PHP as a "proper" OO language will definately benefit from a strict mode if they are willing to put in the extra planning. however alienating the user

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Richard Quadling wrote: This is where PHP's strengths can be seen as a weakness. If parameter overloading is wanted then it would be easier if PHP was not a loosely typed language. it wouldn't bee PHP then anymore, neither from the user experience nor from its internal implementation. This woul

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

This is where PHP's strengths can be seen as a weakness. If parameter overloading is wanted then it would be easier if PHP was not a loosely typed language. But, just for arguments sake, if E_STRICT was active _and_ type hinting was available for ALL types, then at compile time, you COULD build t

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Ron Korving wrote: So, my suggestion is this: why not support function overloading in PHP6, because in PHPs dynamicly typed world this would require runtime checks *on every single function call* as things can't be resolved at compile time? -- Hartmut Holzgraefe, Senior Support Engineer

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Stefan Walk wrote: For the people who have said "I can not understand why this is a bad thing": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liskov_substitution_principle so it is a bad thing when aiming for substitutability, i lack to see an argument yet for substitutability being a must have in all situati

[PHP-DEV] is_numeric_string and general string-to-number conversion

Hi there, I've been looking at the different string->number related functions lately. It looks like is_numeric_[string|unicode]() could be optimized. Here's what I was thinking: Can functions like zend_[string|unicode]_to_number() be added? Then is_numeric_* could always call only 1 function tha

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 02:42:10 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Boerger) wrote: > Hello Robert, > > Wednesday, August 2, 2006, 2:32:27 AM, you wrote: > > > To make a better language. Following all the sheep out there just > > makes for more fodder. Just because it's in the books, doesn't make > > it

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Lukas Smith wrote: So then the only option is to introduce a "i-dont-want-to-care-about-oo-in-my-classes-mode" for the people who simply don't care. yes .. it should be possible to set this on a per class basis. and children should be able to change the mode. classes in lax mode might also r

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Derick Rethans wrote: On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Lukas Smith wrote: again i feel that people who want to use PHP as a "proper" OO language will definately benefit from a strict mode if they are willing to put in the extra planning. however alienating the userbase for this by making it impossible to k

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Lukas Smith wrote: > again i feel that people who want to use PHP as a "proper" OO language will > definately benefit from a strict mode if they are willing to put in the extra > planning. however alienating the userbase for this by making it impossible to > keep the old low pl

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

For the people who have said "I can not understand why this is a bad thing": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liskov_substitution_principle Regards, Stefan -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

If I might make a suggestion... I see two camps here, one in favor of freedom and others in favor of reliability in inheritance. I think both make good points. Maybe there is a way out that can please both and even another group of people. Maybe, for PHP6, it's an idea to start supporting funct

Re: [PHP-DEV] zend_u_strtod is slow - possible fix

Hi Andrei, Thanks for your reply. Yeah, obviously it'll still be slower than with an already-binary string. :-) But I figured it's better than before, until something better comes along... Unless there were other plans to rewrite it, is there a way to easily (for me! :-)) have it do all the con

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Derick Rethans wrote: On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Robert Cummings wrote: On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 23:41 +0200, Marcus Boerger wrote: Hello Michael, nobody forces you to use OO if you don't like it but it is as it is. And It is as it is, but not as it was. PHP4 allowed signature mismatching. Yeah,

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Christian Schneider wrote: > Marcus Boerger wrote: > > nobody forces you to use OO if you don't like it but it is as it is. And > > we cannot make it ignore its basic rules. It might be that you are lazy and > > PHP can and PHP did allow changing parameters when overriding fu

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

Marcus Boerger wrote: > Hello Michael, > > nobody forces you to use OO if you don't like it but it is as it is. > And we cannot make it ignore its basic rules. It might be that you > are lazy and have code that would end up without problems if changing > signatures at will. However we have a bunch

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Robert Cummings wrote: > On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 23:41 +0200, Marcus Boerger wrote: > > Hello Michael, > > > > nobody forces you to use OO if you don't like it but it is as it is. And > > It is as it is, but not as it was. PHP4 allowed signature mismatching. Yeah, but PHP 4

Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Lukas Smith wrote: > Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > Relax people. There are certain paradigms and expectations people have. > > The original PHP design met the expectations and paradigms of a loosely > > typed procedural language. Now, some 12 years later we are trying to meet