Philip Olson wrote:
It's also worth mentioning the following historical commit:
the 'alternative' syntax is not deprecated
Tue Oct 9 23:29:27 2001 UTC (5 years, 3 months ago) by jimw
In other words, over five years ago the deprecated status warning was
removed from the PHP manual for
It's also worth mentioning the following historical commit:
the 'alternative' syntax is not deprecated
Tue Oct 9 23:29:27 2001 UTC (5 years, 3 months ago) by jimw
In other words, over five years ago the deprecated status warning was
removed from the PHP manual for this alternative syn
I think removing it at this stage is really not an option. It doesn't hurt
anyone and many find it beneficial inside embedded HTML.
Andi
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Moon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 9:32 AM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject:
Don't the FastCGI processes inherit memory limits from their parent? (assuming
you're not running standalone FastCGI which almost
noone does).
Andi
> -Original Message-
> From: Pierre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 4:54 PM
> To: Reinis Rozitis
> Cc: interna
On 2/5/07, Reinis Rozitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure that you are looking at the right place to solve the
> problem. If the leaks are in phpinfo (or in memory allocated by php),
> then maybe (really not sure).
>
> But if the leaks are in IM as their extension does not use php memor
On Feb 6, 2007, at 0:46, Richard Lynch wrote:
and they don't even realize that the () doesn't mean what they think
it means, and it "just works" because it's a no-op.
() is not a no-op.
return ($a) vs. return $a could cause PHP to corrupt memory and crash :)
Edin
--
Edin Kadribasic, Emini
I would argue that list() (and [] when used like list()) should remain a
terminal expression. Yes it's possible to make it non-terminal, but I
don't like what the resulting syntax winds up looking like.
-Sara
Good question. If it's possible to make it behave this way, I don't see
why not. On
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 17:46 -0600, Richard Lynch wrote:
>
> On Mon, February 5, 2007 12:05 pm, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> >> So now we have an invisible operator with a magical symbol '[' which
> >> *sometimes* means create an array, but *sometimes* means to
> >> de-construct an array into individ
Richard Lynch wrote:
> More edge cases:
>
> $foo = array(1, 2, 3];
> $bar = [1, 2, 3);
>
> Syntax error because it's unbalancedO
>
> Or kosher, because the choice of start/end delimiters should
> be up to the user?
>
> Should it match whatever rule is in place for:
>
> if (...){
> endif;
ec
More edge cases:
$foo = array(1, 2, 3];
$bar = [1, 2, 3);
Syntax error because it's unbalancedO
Or kosher, because the choice of start/end delimiters should be up to
the user?
Should it match whatever rule is in place for:
if (...){
endif;
--
Some people have a "gift" link here.
Know what
On Mon, February 5, 2007 12:05 pm, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> So now we have an invisible operator with a magical symbol '[' which
>> *sometimes* means create an array, but *sometimes* means to
>> de-construct an array into individual variables?
>
> Yep. We also have an invisible magical oper
On Mon, February 5, 2007 12:06 pm, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2007, at 8:52 PM, Richard Lynch wrote:
>
>> E!
>>
>> So now we have an invisible operator with a magical symbol '[' which
>> *sometimes* means create an array, but *sometimes* means to
>> de-construct an array into indivi
On Mon, February 5, 2007 1:18 pm, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> I don't buy the "searching docs is easier" argument. There are plenty
> of operators and such that are hard to search for.
Yes, and it makes life miserable for some of us...
Is that a good reason to extend that misery to yet another opera
Put it this way: Are you willing to answer EVERY PHP-General question
asking what this is? ;-)
Cuz I'm sure not willing to do it.
I'm not willing to answer newbie questions on regular basis, but that
has nothing to do with anything - I was unwilling to do it with any
syntax. I just think ina
On Mon, February 5, 2007 12:24 pm, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>
>> When a new PHP user asks you "What is an array?" you will
>> understand.
>
> If someone is not familiar with the concept of the array at all, it
> doesn't matter if it's written as array(1,2,3) or [1,2,3]. That's not
> what we ar
On Mon, February 5, 2007 12:01 pm, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> you, they don't have a clue what they are doing. $a = [1,2,3];
>> would
>> not mean jack sqat to those folks. And as stated, finding docs on
>> that
>
> How hard can that be? If one is smart enough to do computer
> programming,
> how
I'm not sure that you are looking at the right place to solve the
problem. If the leaks are in phpinfo (or in memory allocated by php),
then maybe (really not sure).
But if the leaks are in IM as their extension does not use php memory
manage, it is not something fixable by php or anything else b
Hi,
On 2/5/07, Reinis Rozitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It will never replace the GD extension. Please read the whole thread
> before making conclusions (btw, check out http://www.libgd.org).
I didnt mean that way nor as a conclusion, GD is still much faster and so on
(but thanks for the lin
It will never replace the GD extension. Please read the whole thread
before making conclusions (btw, check out http://www.libgd.org).
I didnt mean that way nor as a conclusion, GD is still much faster and so on
(but thanks for the link/hint).
It was just an excuse why did I play with magickwand
On 2/5/07, Reinis Rozitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm asking about this just because yesterday while testing MagickWand (
http://www.magickwand.org which according to Thomas Boutell
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-dev&m=115698025320619 in some point
should replace GD) just by accident di
$a = array( 1, 2, 3 ).
It's not hard. I don't think anybody ever argued it's hard to
understand. The argument was it's too verbose once you talk about
multi-dimensional arrays with a lot of sub-arrays containing in turn
even more sub-arrays - entire code becomes packed with repetitions
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 10:01 -0800, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > you, they don't have a clue what they are doing. $a = [1,2,3]; would
> > not mean jack sqat to those folks. And as stated, finding docs on that
>
> How hard can that be? If one is smart enough to do computer programming,
> how h
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 18:36 +0100, Stefan Walk wrote:
> Please don't. reads much better than in templates.
Says you :) But I don't think it should be removed either. Editor's have
no business defining what should and should not be useful in a language.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
.
Hello,
is there a chance that this will ever make in PHP5 (or othet future
releases) as base feature http://www.zend.com/zend/week/pat/pat48.txt
That is besides PHP_FCGI_MAX_REQUESTS to have also the posibility limit the
childs max memory usage/leak (PHP_FCGI_MAX_RAM_MB)
I'm asking about this
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
I don't buy the "searching docs is easier" argument. There are plenty of
operators and such that are hard to search for.
Good point, but, were there pre-existing solutions to those operators
when they were created? I think that is the point that Zeev was making.
We ha
I don't buy the "searching docs is easier" argument. There are plenty
of operators and such that are hard to search for.
-Andrei
On Feb 5, 2007, at 11:07 AM, Brian Moon wrote:
If someone is not familiar with the concept of the array at all, it
doesn't matter if it's written as array(1,2,3) or
Good question. If it's possible to make it behave this way, I don't see
why not. On the other hand, if you take list(), it can't be used in
RHS.
-Andrei
On Feb 5, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Todd Ruth wrote:
Would this be legal?
function f() {
return [ 1, 2 ];
}
$x = [ $a, $b ] = f();
In the e
If someone is not familiar with the concept of the array at all, it
doesn't matter if it's written as array(1,2,3) or [1,2,3]. That's not
what we are discussing right now.
My point is that if its written array(1,2,3) that have something to
search for in the docs. The new proposed syntax remov
The check would only be performed in the case where one uses the new
type hint. And if someone needs this, he would manually do the same in
userspace anyways (see the example in my original mail).
I would say (IMHO of course) this belongs to userspace. No reason to
build such a complex and r
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> And how this would be verified - each time by passing whole array and
> checking each element is an object? I don't think it's a good idea.
The check would only be performed in the case where one uses the new
type hint. And if someone needs this, he would manually do
Would this be legal?
function f() {
return [ 1, 2 ];
}
$x = [ $a, $b ] = f();
In the end, would we have...?
$a = 1;
$b = 2;
$x = array(1,2);
I'm not trying to be positive or negative about the
syntax. I'm just "testing" somewhat edge cases.
- Todd
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 10:06 -0800, Andre
When a new PHP user asks you "What is an array?" you will understand.
If someone is not familiar with the concept of the array at all, it
doesn't matter if it's written as array(1,2,3) or [1,2,3]. That's not
what we are discussing right now.
Its clear that not all the folks on internals ha
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
you, they don't have a clue what they are doing. $a = [1,2,3]; would
not mean jack sqat to those folks. And as stated, finding docs on that
How hard can that be? If one is smart enough to do computer programming,
how hard can it be to know $a=[1,2,3] is an array? L
So now we have an invisible operator with a magical symbol '[' which
*sometimes* means create an array, but *sometimes* means to
de-construct an array into individual variables?
Yep. We also have an invisible magical operator (), which sometimes
means function definition, sometimes means expres
On Feb 4, 2007, at 8:52 PM, Richard Lynch wrote:
E!
So now we have an invisible operator with a magical symbol '[' which
*sometimes* means create an array, but *sometimes* means to
de-construct an array into individual variables?
That's just disgusting, imho.
-1 !!!
The way I view [
you, they don't have a clue what they are doing. $a = [1,2,3]; would
not mean jack sqat to those folks. And as stated, finding docs on that
How hard can that be? If one is smart enough to do computer programming,
how hard can it be to know $a=[1,2,3] is an array? Like, what else could
it be
I agree. Syntax is good, if we make it work both ways.
-Andrei
On Feb 4, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
My 2c - unless we also make it behave like a list() when in assignment
context - I think it will confusing.
So I'm +1 if we make it work as both list() and array(), and -1
otherwis
Yes, it does work with 's'. I updated the README.
-Andrei
On Feb 4, 2007, at 8:24 PM, Michael B Allen wrote:
The documentation claims:
The following characters also have a meaning in the specifier string:
! - the parameter it follows can be of specified type or NULL (only
applies to a,
class Example
{
public function doSomething(Object[] $objects)
And how this would be verified - each time by passing whole array and
checking each element is an object? I don't think it's a good idea.
Also, PHP doesn't have [] as array definition (at least not until Andi's
idea i
Please don't. reads much better than in templates.
Regards,
Stefan
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Reading the array thread, someone mentioned having several ways of doing
things. One of their examples was the if: endif; syntax. Forgive me if
this has been discussed, but has anyone proposed removing that for PHP6?
Seems like the perfect time to do it. Its not recommended. Editors
that c
Ford, Mike wrote:
I don't find:
$a = [1 => ['pears', 'apples'], 2 => ['juice', 'oranges']];
any less readable than:
$a = array(1 => array('pears', 'apples'), 2 => array('juice',
'oranges'));
Quite the opposite actually :)
Me too - I go beyond Edin on this one, as I find the array() versio
> From: Christian Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Argh! Reading such a line, I think of named parameters,
> not an array.
>
> That's exactly what we are emulating this way ;-)
> Our patch is greedy, i.e. it collects as much as possible
> into one array. If you want to do this you nee
Richard Quadling wrote:
>> Argh! Reading such a line, I think of named parameters, not an array.
That's exactly what we are emulating this way ;-)
> I agree with Francois here. Other than looking STRONLY like named
> parameters, surely there is a flaw if a declaration is ...
>
> function convert
On 04 February 2007 21:41, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 23:27 04-02-07, Pierre wrote:
> > On 2/4/07, Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > At 20:14 04-02-07, Pierre wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 2/4/07, Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > I personally find array extr
On 05/02/07, LAUPRETRE François (P) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Christian Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> - func('foo' => $foo, 'bar' => $bar, ...) equivalent to
> >> func(array('foo' => $foo, 'bar' => $bar, ...)
Argh! Reading such a line, I think of named parameters, not an ar
On 04 February 2007 18:38, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > Yes, you will come across it if its added.
> > I find the Javascript syntax confusing to read as well. However more
> > importantly I do not see the point in adding this sugar to save 5
> > chars.
>
> Nested arrays
On 04 February 2007 07:25, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I thought I may have brought this up a long time ago but
> couldn't find anything in the archives.
> For a long time already I've been thinking about possibly
> adding a new syntax for array(...) which would be shorter. I'd suggest
> [...].
That would be very handy. As I code frequently JavaScript and ActionScript, I
will use this feature
with pleasure. +2 for me :D The array(), especially for more-than-1 dimensional
arrays is very
cumbersome.
Best Regards,
Ivailo Karamanolev
On Monday, February 5, 2007, 12:53:44 PM, LAUPRETRE Fra
> From: Christian Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> What's also beautiful about [] IMHO is the symmetry of the syntax,
> list() and array() are asymmetrical which I always found inferior.
Agree. +1 for me, especially for this reason, even after reading Greg's
examples :) IMO, it is
more i
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Named parameters is not just syntax sugar, as they would make it
possible to get compiler errors and phpoc support automatically over
having to implement some array based solution to trigger errors and some
Not 'our' way of named parameters where the main feature is t
I agree with Sara. +1 to extend 'extension_dir' :)
Do you plan for adding a corresponding set_extension_path/dir() function or
will we have to use ini_set() ?
And, I certainly should know it, but could somebody explain why the default
extensions directory contains this strange 'no-debug-non-zts
Christian Schneider wrote:
My personal summary of this thread is: We won't have syntactic sugar for
common things like arrays, named parameter emulation and the like ever
because it will be killed by the "we already have a way of doing this"
and the "you cannot look it up" argument. Shame, tha
Richard Lynch wrote:
So now we have an invisible operator with a magical symbol '[' which
*sometimes* means create an array, but *sometimes* means to
de-construct an array into individual variables?
The distinction you are making is from an implementation point of view.
From a language users p
PHP 5 Bug Database summary - http://bugs.php.net
Num Status Summary (640 total including feature requests)
===[*Compile Issues]==
39372 Suspended Incompatibility in the PHP API.
===[*Configur
ZendEngine2/zend_compile.c
opline->result.op_type = IS_CONST; /* FIXME: Hack so that
INIT_FCALL_BY_NAME still knows this is a class */
i checked cvs log (and hardly) find that this hack was for php
5.0-rc/betas, not even used in 5.0.
can anyone think about it and change it back to IS_TMP_VAR? it
PHP 4 Bug Database summary - http://bugs.php.net
Num Status Summary (627 total including feature requests)
===[*Network Functions]===
40351 Open DNS resolution fails with PHP
===[Apache2 rel
57 matches
Mail list logo
