Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
For the most part it seems that there is a general consensus on the
features to go into PHP 5.3, my suggestion is that all features with
>10 points are to be put into the 5.3 TODO and the rest can have
another change for PHP 6 and/or PHP 5.4 (if that comes to pass).
Eit
Hi Nuno,
On Sun, 2007-09-16 at 20:02 +0100, Nuno Lopes wrote:
> > >My proposal is the following:
> > >some functions when fed with constant arguments always return a constant
> > >value, too. e.g.:
> > >strlen('abcd') === 4.
> >
> > I like the general idea.
> >
> > Would there be some caveats with
Michael Lively wrote:
Since the call A::foo() is completely defined and that no "fall back"
occurs, I guess "A" is more expected as a result of this script.
Your patch will return B. I discussed this matter quite heavily on
#php.pecl and the expectations were also that "A" should get returned
he
- Original Message -
From: "Etienne Kneuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [patch] Late static bindings (LSB)
However this causes a seg fault in your current patch. I will do a little
more checking to see why you are segfault
>My proposal is the following:
>some functions when fed with constant arguments always return a constant
>value, too. e.g.:
>strlen('abcd') === 4.
I like the general idea.
Would there be some caveats with stuff like this if it is possible to
change the charset at runtime?
I guess it is importan
Mmm... but that means dictating which features can or can't go into an
extension or a specific build system purely on the level of outside
interest in them.
Steph, isn't the goal of "core" to contain things that are of common use
and are not for niche uses and wouldn't lack of interest impl
Lukas has a good point about the "0" votes, however if there are niche
features most people don't really care/know about that in itself means
that there is not much support for said functionality. IMHO the point of
There's a difference. Let't take two features which got similar voting
record
Hello Steph,
I did neither meant to dictate anything nor did I said never
...and pure lack of interest belongs into democracy, so if we go that route
we have to accept that route :-) If not we can proceed as we did in the
past. Have votings and politics but in the end ignoring decisions anyw
Mmm... but that means dictating which features can or can't go into an
extension or a specific build system purely on the level of outside interest
in them. That's the main problem here.
The three contentious items, I'd probably (reluctantly) agree with you.
- Steph
- Original Message ---
Since the call A::foo() is completely defined and that no "fall back"
occurs, I guess "A" is more expected as a result of this script.
Your patch will return B. I discussed this matter quite heavily on
#php.pecl and the expectations were also that "A" should get returned
here.
I've taken a look
Hi Ilia,
Mmm... but that means dictating which features can or can't go into an
extension or a specific build system purely on the level of outside
interest in them.
Steph, isn't the goal of "core" to contain things that are of common use
and are not for niche uses and wouldn't lack of in
On 16-Sep-07, at 1:02 PM, Steph Fox wrote:
Mmm... but that means dictating which features can or can't go into
an extension or a specific build system purely on the level of
outside interest in them.
Steph, isn't the goal of "core" to contain things that are of common
use and are not for
Hello Steph,
speakin as a looser - we should keep what we just decided on and do it.
Do it as in work on it. As in code. As in no more politics for the moment.
marcus
Sunday, September 16, 2007, 6:12:14 PM, you wrote:
> Hi Ilia,
> If it helps any we can count everything else in and just look
Hello,
I made the update anyway as it looked like it wouldn't take much time.
Attached is a updated version of my patch, along with all the tests
related to it:
http://patches.colder.ch/Zend/late_static_bindings_take7.patch?markup
--
Etienne Kneuss
http://www.colder.ch
Men never do evil so c
Hi Ilia,
If it helps any we can count everything else in and just look at the ones
that failed:
No quorum:
==
Switch for disabling/enabling materialized cursors in mysqli - 25/28 no
vote, 3 positive votes
Merge the GCC 4 -fvisibility patch - 20/28 no vote, 7 positive votes
On 16-Sep-07, at 11:02 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On 15-Sep-07, at 7:18 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
NP ;-) Btw the detailed breakdown of the votes is available here
http://bb.prohost.org/53Features.pdf
I have taken the data from this PDF and slightly reworked
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On 15-Sep-07, at 7:18 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
NP ;-) Btw the detailed breakdown of the votes is available here
http://bb.prohost.org/53Features.pdf
I have taken the data from this PDF and slightly reworked things [1] so
that its easy to see which topics got mo
Hi Dmitry,
your patch fails with one test of mine. It may show a difference in the
conception we have of LSB's usage, consider the following snip:
--%<-
http://www.colder.ch
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from a religiou
18 matches
Mail list logo
