Andrew Mason wrote:
> For those of us who gave up following the namespace debate 150+ emails ago,
> can someone from the core maintainers let the rest of us plebs know if
> namespaces are likely to be included any time soon.
>
> I've been playing with the patches that were provided by moving our
>
For those of us who gave up following the namespace debate 150+ emails ago,
can someone from the core maintainers let the rest of us plebs know if
namespaces are likely to be included any time soon.
I've been playing with the patches that were provided by moving our
framework over to their own nam
Actually it's the opposite. With create_function, you can bind
variables, by marshalling them to a string and embed them in the
That's not binding. But the problem is, seeing this, one expects
closure. And it's no closure.
So it's different from create_function, in that it doesn't allow
bind
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Wez Furlong wrote:
>
> > All will be revealed soon.
>
> Just wondering what sort of timeframe you mean with "soon"... any idea?
We're atleast another week futher along without any news. I find this
getting more and more disgustin
On 12/16/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the problem there is that this syntax wouldn't support external
> variables, and without them there's not much difference between that and
> create_function.
The difference is, that it is compile-time and create_function is run-t
Actually it's the opposite. With create_function, you can bind
variables, by marshalling them to a string and embed them in the
function-definition. With a static syntax, this isn't possible.
However, this is only a problem, when you need to bind variables,
which isn't always the case and even then
