Hi,
sorry for the manual duplicate. I had the feeling my mail from yesterday
evening was lost, as I could not find it in the sent folder again.
cu, Lars
Am Freitag, den 15.02.2008, 07:41 +0100 schrieb Lars Strojny:
> Hi,
>
> I know, I might be a bit late but I've played around with NOWDOCS and
Hi,
I know I am a bit late, but I've played around with NOWDOCS this
evening, and one issue thing came up instantly: I asked myself why the
heck are single quotes allowed but not double quotes? This seems to me
counter intuitive to the way we handle strings in PHP. I think it would
be perfectly al
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 13.02.2008, 16:47 +0100 schrieb Lars Strojny:
[...]
> The current patch is in a bit hacky state, as I have my doubts whether
> storing the include paths as a string is a good idea. I want to gain
> some feedback for this addition first before I invest more work on it.
Just fo
Hi,
I know, I might be a bit late but I've played around with NOWDOCS and
one issue popped up instantly: it seems not really logical to me, why
only single quotes are allowed and I have the feeling a lot of users
will ask the same questions. The problem is, that we are used to the way
we define st
On Wed, February 13, 2008 9:47 am, Lars Strojny wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> the following patch[1] adds the functions append_include_path() and
> prepend_include_path(). These function are there to make include path
> adjustments easier than it is. Especially append_include_path() is
> what
> is do
> -Original Message-
> From: Lukas Kahwe Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:15 PM
> To: Christopher Jones
> Cc: Pierre Joye; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PDO] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PDO] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PDO] Re:
> [PHP-DEV] [RFC] An Idea
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> However the point here is. There is a proposal on the table to change
> the php.net project to be able to bring in developers we do not know,
> for code they have not yet written, for specs they have not yet
> contributed. This is flipping our development process upsid
On 14.02.2008, at 22:19, Christopher Jones wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> On 14.02.2008, at 22:07, Christopher Jones wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> > You (as group)
>>
>> We are individuals, all members of the mail lists.
>
> Ok, could the Microsoft and IBM people on this lis
On 14.02.2008, at 23:06, Christopher Jones wrote:
I think most multi-person plans that impact an existing OSS project
have had some genesis in private discussions before being broadcast.
For PDO V2, this discussion was just really slow and intermittent.
Yeah, I am basically fine with this. I
Pierre Joye wrote:
> As we all agree that poor drivers are not welcome (and great drivers
> are...), the problem here is not about improving PHP database support
> (call it PDOv2 or DBDOv3) but to introduce CLA'ed areas in PHP, php
> core or PECL. It would be nice to dissociate the two and to be
Hi Chris,
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Christopher Jones
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The code and strength of contributions and maintenance is the ultimate
> evidence of what can be trusted. Poor quality drivers, if they are
> distributed via a PECL-only distribution, will acquire their
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> On 14.02.2008, at 22:07, Christopher Jones wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> > You (as group)
>>
>> We are individuals, all members of the mail lists.
>
> Ok, could the Microsoft and IBM people on this list please speak up
> then? Could also one of the Oracl
On 14.02.2008, at 22:07, Christopher Jones wrote:
Pierre Joye wrote:
> You (as group)
We are individuals, all members of the mail lists.
Ok, could the Microsoft and IBM people on this list please speak up
then? Could also one of the Oracle internals guys speak up on this
list? That is
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> OSS is a collaborative process that is not about some manager
> allocating some ressources here and there. People usually make
> personal commitments here and maybe this is the bigger culture clash
> than the CLA.
Oracle contributes to a range of open source projects,
Pierre Joye wrote:
> You (as group)
We are individuals, all members of the mail lists.
> Tell us the names of these entities, companies or persons, who are
> going to contribute and what are actually their requirements.
The general list of data access providers has been given before and
isn'
Pierre Joye schrieb:
Tell us the names of these entities, companies or persons, who are
going to contribute and what are actually their requirements. What
will they bring (saying "expertise" is not something I can buy)? I
don't understand what is so hard to understand that it is a minimum to
get
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 17:47 -0800, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > We first discussed about fastcgi as a first step but the goal is to
> > support this syntax in all SAPI (well, cli makes little sense). It was
> > thought as a replacement for htscanner (see pecl) but without its
> > limitati
Lukas Kahwe Smith schreef:
On 14.02.2008, at 10:07, Lars Strojny wrote:
Hi Jochem,
Am Donnerstag, den 14.02.2008, 00:56 +0100 schrieb Jochem Maas:
I think Lars has a point ... maybe set_include_path() could
be given a second parameter instead to mitigate the need for seperate
funcs?:
set_in
On 14/02/2008, Pierre Joye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Stan,
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2008 1:52 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Do I understand correctly that current [HOST=] and [PATH=] functionality
> > for PHP works only for CGI/FCGI sapi? Is there any reason f
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 14.02.2008, at 10:20, Markus Fischer wrote:
Personally I never understood why we've set_include_path in the first
place anyway. "ini_set('include_path', ..." does exactly the same and
the C function does actually exactly this.
Short history lesson:
The reason for s
This is what I'm saying.
But the current grammar lacks within the use of const and final!
And that's what it's all about - that's my point. ;)
Lukas Kahwe Smith schrieb:
On 13.02.2008, at 21:52, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Guys,
I think we are over-engineering and over-complicating here. Reminds me
On 14.02.2008, at 10:07, Lars Strojny wrote:
Hi Jochem,
Am Donnerstag, den 14.02.2008, 00:56 +0100 schrieb Jochem Maas:
I think Lars has a point ... maybe set_include_path() could
be given a second parameter instead to mitigate the need for seperate
funcs?:
set_include_path('foo', INCPATH_OV
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Markus Fischer wrote:
> Lars Strojny wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 14.02.2008, 00:56 +0100 schrieb Jochem Maas:
> > > I think Lars has a point ... maybe set_include_path() could
> > > be given a second parameter instead to mitigate the need for seperate
> > > funcs?:
> > >
>
On 14.02.2008, at 10:20, Markus Fischer wrote:
Lars Strojny wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 14.02.2008, 00:56 +0100 schrieb Jochem Maas:
I think Lars has a point ... maybe set_include_path() could
be given a second parameter instead to mitigate the need for
seperate
funcs?:
set_include_path('fo
Lars Strojny wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 14.02.2008, 00:56 +0100 schrieb Jochem Maas:
I think Lars has a point ... maybe set_include_path() could
be given a second parameter instead to mitigate the need for seperate
funcs?:
set_include_path('foo', INCPATH_OVERRIDE); // default
set_include_path('f
Hi Jochem,
Am Donnerstag, den 14.02.2008, 00:56 +0100 schrieb Jochem Maas:
> I think Lars has a point ... maybe set_include_path() could
> be given a second parameter instead to mitigate the need for seperate
> funcs?:
>
> set_include_path('foo', INCPATH_OVERRIDE); // default
> set_include_path('f
26 matches
Mail list logo
