On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>
> On 22-Oct-06, at 6:27 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > Yes, but E_STRICT is not an argument validation error level. Throwing an
> > E_STRICT here is quite wrong unless we have completely redefined E_STRICT to
> > mean just about any sort of error. m
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:13:47 -0700, Adam Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm a developer on pear/Auth and pear/Config.
I can confirm that yes he is a developer on both of these and needs
CVS access so he stops bugging me to commit his patches.
Adam Ashley
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
I'm a developer on pear/Auth and pear/Config.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 10/23/06, Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
On 10/23/06, Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Use of mktime(0) and alike is improper use of the function, more over
> generally it can be traced to an undesired code behavior.
Which is? mktime(0) is just like mktime(24); if it i
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On 22-Oct-06, at 5:48 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Richard Quadling wrote:
With the recent discussion on E_STRICT and the waste of cpu cycles ...
Why is mktime(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) generating E_STRICT?
What is unstrict about t
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Richard Quadling wrote:
With the recent discussion on E_STRICT and the waste of cpu cycles ...
Why is mktime(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) generating E_STRICT?
What is unstrict about this?
Why is important to use time() instead?
It's quicker.
as I just said
Hello,
On 10/23/06, Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Use of mktime(0) and alike is improper use of the function, more over
generally it can be traced to an undesired code behavior.
Which is? mktime(0) is just like mktime(24); if it is not the case,
there is a bug (it is the case). B
Use of mktime(0) and alike is improper use of the function, more over
generally it can be traced to an undesired code behavior.
On 22-Oct-06, at 1:45 PM, Richard Quadling wrote:
With the recent discussion on E_STRICT and the waste of cpu cycles ...
Why is mktime(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) generating
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Richard Quadling wrote:
> With the recent discussion on E_STRICT and the waste of cpu cycles ...
>
> Why is mktime(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) generating E_STRICT?
>
> What is unstrict about this?
>
> Why is important to use time() instead?
It's quicker.
regards,
Derick
--
Derick
On 22-Oct-06, at 6:27 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Yes, but E_STRICT is not an argument validation error level.
Throwing an E_STRICT here is quite wrong unless we have completely
redefined E_STRICT to mean just about any sort of error. mktime
($a) is perfectly fine at the language level and E
On 22-Oct-06, at 5:48 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Richard Quadling wrote:
With the recent discussion on E_STRICT and the waste of cpu
cycles ...
Why is mktime(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) generating E_STRICT?
What is unstrict about this?
Why is important
Two things to try:
- run it under valgrind to see if it highlights code problems
- try it on a different box. If it works on the other box, consider
testing your ram as it may be faulty.
--Wez.
On 10/18/06, Gwynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm experiencing a strange random crash in PHP 5.1.4
Hi,
Its been a while since I or anyone else has done any updates on the PHP
6 todo page [1]. I know that some of the todo items are big enough that
even with the many commits being made to HEAD they will take a bit
before they will be finished.
Anyways I just wanted to ask if someone who has
With the recent discussion on E_STRICT and the waste of cpu cycles ...
Why is mktime(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) generating E_STRICT?
What is unstrict about this?
Why is important to use time() instead?
--
-
Richard Quadling
Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498&r=213474731
14 matches
Mail list logo
