Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
On the ZendCon, we (Marcus, Elizabeth, Andi and myself) had a talk about
what we'd like to do with namespaces, and we arrived at the following
conclusions, which we propose to implement in 5.3:
.
3. Functions will not be allowed inside namespaces. We arrived
As far as I know, it's still underway. Andi explained at ZendCon this year
how it will take a few more months--he made it clear that PHP has a very
rich development history that no one wants to lose. I, for one, am looking
forward to when the migration is finally complete, as I am so much more us
Hi all,
My name is Ilia--I figured that since this is my first patch to the PHP
core, I should refrain from submitting a massive patch and keep it simple.
The patch that I have attached fixes a simple compiler warning within
Zend/zend_execute.c.
The compiler was complaining about comparing signed
Whatever happened to the Subversion migration effort?
-Andrei
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Monday 22 September 2008 10:45:33 am Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> On 22.09.2008, at 16:37, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> >> Returning to the original debate, if you really believe this
> >> conflict is
> >> not an issue, then why was the first user note published last
> >> December a
> >> note about this
On Monday 22 September 2008 2:45:51 pm Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On the ZendCon, we (Marcus, Elizabeth, Andi and myself) had a talk about
> what we'd like to do with namespaces, and we arrived at the following
> conclusions, which we propose to implement in 5.3:
>
> 1. Allow braces for na
Hi
2008/9/22 Michael Wallner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
> distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
> time to ask me and you that question once for all.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> --
> PHP Inter
I have to agree here. Is the book already closed on core extensions in 5.3?
-ralph
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
Michael Wallner escribió:
Hi,
I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
time to
Stanislav Malyshev schreef:
Hi!
On the ZendCon, we (Marcus, Elizabeth, Andi and myself) had a talk about
what we'd like to do with namespaces, and we arrived at the following
conclusions, which we propose to implement in 5.3:
1. Allow braces for namespaces. So, the syntax for namespaces will
Hi!
On the ZendCon, we (Marcus, Elizabeth, Andi and myself) had a talk about
what we'd like to do with namespaces, and we arrived at the following
conclusions, which we propose to implement in 5.3:
1. Allow braces for namespaces. So, the syntax for namespaces will be:
a) namespace foo;
should
Having conflicting names of namespaces and classes is a idea bad from
the ground, and it should not be allowed. PHP should trigger a fatal
error when it sees it. Having two things with the same name is
unnatural and unneeded.
Syntax with -> is unnatural and unreadable. -> is for working with
objec
Dmitry Stogov schreef:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 22.09.2008, at 16:37, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Returning to the original debate, if you really believe this conflict is
not an issue, then why was the first user note published last December a
note about this conflict?
http://us3.php.net/manual/
hi Dmirty,
I really don't see a reason to change namespace syntax into a less
intuitive way.
I don't think the current implementation is intuitive, the ambiguity
issues,
(and possibly the name resolution order, although I can't grok what the
current
state of that is) are rather large WTFs.
Michael Wallner escribió:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
> distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
> time to ask me and you that question once for all.
+1000, :) probably the most useful addition in years.
--
Hi,
I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
time to ask me and you that question once for all.
Regards,
Mike
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: ht
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 22.09.2008, at 16:37, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>>> Returning to the original debate, if you really believe this conflict is
>>> not an issue, then why was the first user note published last December a
>>> note about
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> On 22.09.2008, at 16:37, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>>> Returning to the original debate, if you really believe this conflict is
>>> not an issue, then why was the first user note published last December a
>>> note about this conflict?
>>>
>>> http://us3.php.net/manual/
On 22.09.2008, at 16:37, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Returning to the original debate, if you really believe this
conflict is
not an issue, then why was the first user note published last
December a
note about this conflict?
http://us3.php.net/manual/en/language.namespaces.php#80035
I could add
Gregory Beaver wrote:
> Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Greg Beaver wrote:
>>
>>> Lupus Michaelis wrote:
>>>
Larry Garfield a écrit :
> I agree that #5 seems like the best solution. The problem is caused
> by the double meaning of ::. All of the othe
Hi Jochem,
Jochem Maas wrote:
> Dmitry Stogov schreef:
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Greg Beaver wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>
>> I really don't see a reason to change namespace syntax into a less
>> intuitive way.
>
> I don't think the current implementation is intuitive, the ambiguity
> issues,
> (and possibly th
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> Greg Beaver wrote:
>
>> Lupus Michaelis wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Garfield a écrit :
>>>
>>>
I agree that #5 seems like the best solution. The problem is caused
by the double meaning of ::. All of the other solutions feel like
bandaids.
Dmitry Stogov schreef:
Hi Greg,
Greg Beaver wrote:
...
I really don't see a reason to change namespace syntax into a less
intuitive way.
I don't think the current implementation is intuitive, the ambiguity issues,
(and possibly the name resolution order, although I can't grok what the cu
Hi Greg,
Greg Beaver wrote:
> Lupus Michaelis wrote:
>> Larry Garfield a écrit :
>>
>>> I agree that #5 seems like the best solution. The problem is caused
>>> by the double meaning of ::. All of the other solutions feel like
>>> bandaids.
>>
>> They are not a double meaning : it is a scope
PHP 6 Bug Database summary - http://bugs.php.net/
Num Status Summary (66 total -- which includes 30 feature requests)
===[*General Issues]==
26771 Suspended register_tick_funtions crash under threaded webservers
===
24 matches
Mail list logo
