Hi!
So, I really would like to revert that foward_static_call stuff and
implement the parent:: patch instead, while it's still possible.
thoughts?
Didn't we discuss that already? Adding magic to parent:: is not a good
idea, it's very basic language construct and should work simple. LSB is
an
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Markus Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since some raised issues with the word "lexical", what do people think to
> just re-use the (afaik deprecated) "var" keyword, so we won't need a new
> keyword in the chain.
What exactly is the problem with "lexical"? I fi
Hi!
Since some raised issues with the word "lexical", what do people think
to just re-use the (afaik deprecated) "var" keyword, so we won't need a
new keyword in the chain.
That would be quite confusing IMHO, since JavaScript uses 'var' for the
exact opposite - to declare variables that are l
Since some raised issues with the word "lexical", what do people think to just
re-use the (afaik deprecated) "var" keyword, so we won't need a new keyword in
the chain.
cheers,
- Markus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:00:07 -0400, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> function foo($a, $b, &$c) global ($d, &$e) {
>> // ...
>> }
>>
>> $myfunc = lambda($a, $b, &$c) lexical ($d, &$e) {
>> // ...
>> }
>>
>> That puts all the information in the declaration line with parallel
> synt
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 20:07 +0200, Timm Friebe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >> I like this generally, but cannot live with the BC issues raised.
> >> Introducing all type names as keywords will make "class Object", "class
> >> Integer" and so on give a syntax error.
> >
> > That's actually not true, the pa
Hi!
Can you confirm you're not already working on this? Tony told me on
IRC you were doing something. I was just about to commit
Yes, I'm not working on ext/standard. I was doing Zend engine, but that
is done.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend
Stan,
Can you confirm you're not already working on this? Tony told me on
IRC you were doing something. I was just about to commit
ext/standard/var.c & tests. David and I are going to go through
ext/standard/*
Thanks
Olivier
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:45 PM, David Coallier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
Hi!
As one of the Haskell list denizens commented, is there a potential for memory
leakage if lambdas implicitly import $this when defined within an object
Not really leakage (if refcounts done right) but lifetimes extending
beyond what is expected - i.e. if some instance of closure generate
> I think allowing globals/lexicals to be passed by value doesn't make
> much sense, you could just use a regular parameter for that.
No, that is highly inconvenient when you're doing actual functional
programming with higher order functions and everything.
$i = 1;
$incrementor = lambda ($x) lex
2008/6/20 Olivier Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Want some help D? :)
>
> Olivier
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:18 AM, David Coallier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'll take a few
>
Yep, after speaking with felipe, we (you and I) have standard/
--
Slan,
David
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> Looks fine, but probably we should emit error only if class declared in
> the same source file.
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>
Great, didn't realize how easy this would be. Attached patch does this,
but requires another test:
067.php.inc:
--TEST--
067: Name ambiguity (import n
On 6/20/08, Etienne Kneuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To sum up key points about each possibilities:
>
> 1) forward_static_call
> + no need to affect the engine
> - slow, painful
>
> 2) parent:: carries the info while ParentClassName:: doesn't
> + convenient
> + no functionnality lost
>
On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 10:50 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:33:08 +0200, Alexander Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Friday 20 June 2008, Larry Garfield wrote:
> >> > function ($x, $y) use ($a, $b, &$c) {};
> >>
> >> I am not sure if "use" is the clearest word to use
Larry Garfield escreveu:
> Totally silly idea:
function foo($a, $b, &$c) global ($d, &$e) {
// ...
}
$myfunc = lambda($a, $b, &$c) lexical ($d, &$e) {
// ...
}
That puts all the information in the declaration line with parallel syntax and
semantics, and would even allow both by-val and b
On Friday 20 June 2008, Chris Stockton wrote:
> No one at all thinks:
> function foo($x, $y) use $a, $b, $c {
> }
>
> Looks awkward and a little out of place
It certainly is new and different in PHP, but I don't see a reason why this
should be hard to get used to.
Also, it works for Java exceptio
Looks fine, but probably we should emit error only if class declared in
the same source file.
Thanks. Dmitry.
Gregory Beaver wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You probably have seen Derick's blog post
> http://www.derickrethans.nl/namespaces_in_php.php
>
> It occurred to me today that there might be a simple, e
Hi,
Sorry to bring that up again!
Quick summary for people that didn't follow it: LSB was implemented,
and it was decided that "explicit calls" ( ClassName::method() )
wouldn't pass the caller info if no fallbacks occured. Some people
that were looking forward to having LSB were disappointed as i
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:33:08 +0200, Alexander Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 20 June 2008, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> > function ($x, $y) use ($a, $b, &$c) {};
>>
>> I am not sure if "use" is the clearest word to use there (wouldn't
> lexical
>> there make more sense?)
>
> I agree. "
Hello
I am doing benchmarking all the time - not only of the patches, but
also some other code that might be useful later.
Here are some values for the STRRPOS patch: http://212.85.117.53/gsoc/
index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48:strrpos-patch-
proposal&catid=36:patches&Itemid=56
Hi,
You probably have seen Derick's blog post
http://www.derickrethans.nl/namespaces_in_php.php
It occurred to me today that there might be a simple, elegant solution
to this problem.
First, let's imagine someone writes this code:
Now, in PHP 5.4, we introduce an internal class "Closure" and
Want some help D? :)
Olivier
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:18 AM, David Coallier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll take a few
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I'll take a few
2008/6/20 Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi!
>
> While we nearing the release of 5.3 (hopefully?), there are many functions
> in the PHP code which still use old parameter parsing API
> (zend_get_parameters_ex) instead of the new one (zend_parse_parameters).
>
> I have
Hi,
I would be fine with requiring an explicit declaration of $this if it helped
avoid memory leaks.
I would propose to always require explicit declaration of $this, even if there
is no memory-leak problem. This would make it easier to distinguish plain
lambdas from closures and would preve
Hello,
No one at all thinks:
function foo($x, $y) use $a, $b, $c {
}
Looks awkward and a little out of place when compared to:
vs
function foo($x, $y) {
lexical $a, $b, $c;
}
Although the fact we have to import variables from the parent scope kinda
stinks and is not typical in closer imple
On Friday 20 June 2008, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > function ($x, $y) use ($a, $b, &$c) {};
>
> I am not sure if "use" is the clearest word to use there (wouldn't lexical
> there make more sense?)
I agree. "use" for both namespaces and closures may not be a good idea.
Otherwise +1 to this syntax for
Hello Mark,
we discussed overloading a hell lot of times an dthe conclusionj always
and every single time has been NO. It would mean a large slowdown for
every single PHP application out there and it is not really that much
halpful. In fact it makes code less readable and maintainable so it
oppo
A list would help :-)
Sure, I was just asking 'in principle'. It'll probably be tomorrow before I
have time to actually do anything about it :)
- Steph
--
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Ilia,
>
> Do you have any objection to my backporting some changes to the 5_2 branch
> that don't affect PHP itself?
>
> These would include:
>
> Windows-specific
>
> configure.bat
> configure --disable_al
Hi Ilia,
Do you have any objection to my backporting some changes to the 5_2 branch
that don't affect PHP itself?
These would include:
Windows-specific
configure.bat
configure --disable_all fix
nmake clean-all
Non-specific
run-tests.php -x
run-tests.php --set-t
Greg,
Congrats, those are rather impressive results.
On 20-Jun-08, at 3:12 AM, Gregory Beaver wrote:
Hi all,
I decided to run my standard phpMyAdmin test without APC enabled and
got
startling results from siege:
Date & Time, Trans, Elap Time, Data Trans, Resp Time, Trans
Rate,
On 6/20/08, Dmitry Stogov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is possible to do it, but I don't see any reason to invest time into
> it. PHP scripts hardly ever use nested functions, and you always can
> access global variables through "global" or $GLOBALS. I don't see, why
> do we need another way
It is possible to do it, but I don't see any reason to invest time into
it. PHP scripts hardly ever use nested functions, and you always can
access global variables through "global" or $GLOBALS. I don't see, why
do we need another way to do the same.
Thanks. Dmitry.
Lars Strojny wrote:
> Hi Dmitr
I only could find two from 2005.
http://news.php.net/php.internals/17491
http://news.php.net/php.internals/14558
It doesn't look like much discussion. I'm new to that web interface; not
sure if it will show the thread.
Why don't we discuss adding this to the PHP6 release? I see it as a very
helpf
Hi Dmitry,
Am Freitag, den 20.06.2008, 16:19 +0400 schrieb Dmitry Stogov:
> No it won't.
While I don't want to use it, it might be really confusing to our users
that it works different to closures (because the declaration of
functions and closures looks similar). Are there any internal
limitation
On Friday 20 June 2008, Lenar Lõhmus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Rodrigo Saboya wrote:
> >> function ($x, $y) ($a, $b, $c) {};
> >
> > This looks better
> >
> >> function ($x, $y) [$a, $b, $c] {};
>
> I think this looks even better:
>
> function ($x, $y) use ($a, $b, &$c) {};
>
> (one could use this synt
No it won't.
Dmitry.
Lars Strojny wrote:
> Hi Dmitry, hi Christian,
>
> Am Freitag, den 20.06.2008, 15:12 +0400 schrieb Dmitry Stogov:
>> $func = function ($x, $y) use $a, $b, $c {
>> }
>
> Will lexical scoping work with normal ("named") functions too?
>
> function foo($x, $y) use $a, $b, $c {
Hi Dmitry, hi Christian,
Am Freitag, den 20.06.2008, 15:12 +0400 schrieb Dmitry Stogov:
>
> $func = function ($x, $y) use $a, $b, $c {
> }
Will lexical scoping work with normal ("named") functions too?
function foo($x, $y) use $a, $b, $c {
}
cu, Lars
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein d
Hi Christian,
I'm fine with your suggestion for lexical variables syntax, but I don't
know if we really need brackets around them. For now I changed syntax in
the following way.
$func = function ($x, $y) use $a, $b, $c {
}
According to segfault, I added a check that emits fatal error.
I don't l
Hey
I must say that the lexical keywords makes alot more sense to me which keeps
the syntax readable without making it too cryptic for the unexperinced or new
developer to php.
I think introducing both the lexical keyword and as Andi proposed a
$LEXICAL as
a to the global / $GLOBALS.
Both wa
Hi,
Both patches seem ok to me. Please ask for a CVS account and prepare
yourself to commit (when your mentor says so) :)
In the second patch maybe you could use zend_memrchr() as well, but you
should get the same results. Also I think that bundling the backwards KMP
would be a nice addition.
Hello Stanislav,
Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 5:00:09 PM, you wrote:
> Hi!
>> First: My patch is quite non-intrusive, it only adds things in a few
>> places (new opcode, a few checks). If you only look at the non-generated
> I think it falls into "famous last words" category. While I did not have
Hello,
Here goes first diff - to keep it simple and avoid confusion I will
post them one-by-one after the previous is accepted/rejected.
Optimization of STRRPOS/STRRIPOS for PHP_5_3.
2 things are changed:
* implementation of search loop from theta(NM) to o(N), omega(NM) -
it is now the same
Hello Andi,
Thursday, June 19, 2008, 8:44:07 AM, you wrote:
> See below:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Christian Seiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:14 PM
>> To: php-dev List
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] [RFC] Closures and lambda functions in PHP
>>
Hello Andi,
Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 8:01:34 AM, you wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> This is a very nice piece of work. Definitely addresses a lot of the issues
> we have raised in the past.
> I would like to see such a solution make its way into PHP (see below re:
> timing).
> There are some thing
Hi,
>From a user perspective, I agree that this would probably be the most useful
behaviour of all. "Type hint" would then mean*:
Hint at what type the variable should have. If possible, convert it to the
target type; if it is not even compatible, throw an error*.
Regards,
Guillaume Rossolini
Hi,
Rodrigo Saboya wrote:
>>
>> function ($x, $y) ($a, $b, $c) {};
>
> This looks better
>
>> function ($x, $y) [$a, $b, $c] {};
I think this looks even better:
function ($x, $y) use ($a, $b, &$c) {};
(one could use this syntax even for traditional functions to
use variable copies/references f
Hi all,
I decided to run my standard phpMyAdmin test without APC enabled and got
startling results from siege:
Date & Time, Trans, Elap Time, Data Trans, Resp Time, Trans
Rate, Throughput, Concurrent,OKAY, Failed
2008-06-20 02:02:35,915, 60.01, 1, 0.98,
48 matches
Mail list logo
