On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Sanjay Mantoor wrote:
> I already wrote and would like to contribute tests on "date" related
> functions.
>
> I have CVS account with id "smantoor". Can somebody grant karma for
> "php-src/ext/date" so that I can commit tests myself.
Done. If you want, you can send the tes
Hello,
I already contributed and committed tests in the "ext/standard/array"
and"ext/gd" area.
I already wrote and would like to contribute tests on "date" related functions.
I have CVS account with id "smantoor".
Can somebody grant karma for "php-src/ext/date" so that I can commit
tests myself.
Le mardi 14 octobre 2008 à 15:30 -0700, Andi Gutmans a écrit :
> > err .. you misunderstood me .. Dmitry wasnt happy with his approach ..
> > last I heard Greg also stopped exploring his alternative approaches.
> > so dont hold you breath.
>
> As I said, I talked to Dmitry today and he was OK with
for more information use following links.
www.freeenrolltojob.blogspot.com
www.ncomagad.blogspot.com
www.wwearenausa.blogspot.com
www.mummysbeuty.blogspot.com
www.uefawallpapers.blogspot.com
www.dineshosw.blogspot.com
thank you!
Dinesh Chandrakumara
Sri Lanka.
Andi Gutmans schreef:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Lukas Kahwe Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 2:15 PM
>> To: Steph Fox
>> Cc: Stas Malyshev; PHP internals
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces and alpha3
>>
>> err .. you misunderstood me .. Dmitry wasnt
> -Original Message-
> From: Lukas Kahwe Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 2:15 PM
> To: Steph Fox
> Cc: Stas Malyshev; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces and alpha3
>
> err .. you misunderstood me .. Dmitry wasnt happy with his approach ..
>
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Surely everyone can see the very public ongoing discussions on [EMAIL
> PROTECTED] the course of this and last year?
>>
>
> Surely everyone in PHP world reads internals@ and can follow all the
> twists and
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Surely everyone can see the very public ongoing discussions on
internals@ over the course of this and last year?
Surely everyone in PHP world reads internals@ and can follow all the
twists and turns of all the discussion. You must be kidding.
most of the fre
Hi!
Surely everyone can see the very public ongoing discussions on
internals@ over the course of this and last year?
Surely everyone in PHP world reads internals@ and can follow all the
twists and turns of all the discussion. You must be kidding.
And of course those same people don't mind a
On 14.10.2008, at 23:15, Steph Fox wrote:
anyways, given the current state most people voted to remove
namespaces from PHP 5.3. i assume that all people that casted
these votes were (and still are) confident that they actually know
what they voted on. maybe some of the people involved i
anyways, given the current state most people voted to remove namespaces
from PHP 5.3. i assume that all people that casted these votes were (and
still are) confident that they actually know what they voted on. maybe
some of the people involved in finding the current proposals will try to
do
Hi Josh,
I'd like to point out that those people started working with
namespaces *before* the idea of dropping them (or postponing them to
PHP 6) appeared on the list. I doubt those people would have done the
same if they had been told that namespaces may very well not be
available until PHP 6.
On 14.10.2008, at 22:55, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Only 8 hours ago, one Jean-Phillipe Serafin wrote: "Many people
have starting working on top level application using namespaces, so
there will a very bad buzz over the php community if namespaces are
ripped out..." and there were fur
Stas...
And people believed us and took the risk.
Which you just said they wouldn't do.
And now you propose to teach them the lesson that trusting PHP core
developers that they actually deliver is a bad idea.
It seems a sounder policy than teaching them they can't trust that what is
actua
2008/10/14 Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Only 8 hours ago, one Jean-Phillipe Serafin wrote: "Many people have
> starting working on top level application using namespaces, so there will a
> very bad buzz over the php community if namespaces are ripped out..." and
> there were further objection
Hi!
Only 8 hours ago, one Jean-Phillipe Serafin wrote: "Many people have
starting working on top level application using namespaces, so there
will a very bad buzz over the php community if namespaces are ripped
out..." and there were further objections on the grounds that namespace
support ha
Steph Fox wrote:
I'd love to see the public reaction if we get it badly wrong. I bet that
lasts much, much longer than the five minute huff over withdrawal.
+10 to that
there are no doubt loads of other fixes, upgrades and necessaries which
people are waiting for from the release of 5.3 - the
On 14.10.2008, at 21:20, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 14.10.2008, at 21:01, Steph Fox wrote:
We are in alpha indeed, and still looking at proposals, and still
without consensus. The last thing I'd want is to see namespace
support pushed under the carpet, but I'd rather see it at this
stage
Hi Andi,
I don't think postponing this to another big release is going to do anyone
any good. You will not see magical revelations because it's postponed by
another year.
No, but we might see a broader agreement, and that would give more of a
basis for user confidence in moving to namespace
Namespaces are for big projects. Staring big project using namespaces when
it's not even clear they'll be in 5.3 is an insane risk, nobody would do
it.
Only 8 hours ago, one Jean-Phillipe Serafin wrote: "Many people have
starting working on top level application using namespaces, so there will
I think the three folks understand the sense of urgency to figure this out.
They've done a lot of hard work over the past few months to get to this point.
I think we're at the last 10 FT now and hopefully within 2-3 days they can come
to an agreement. As I mentioned Dmitry is already OK with the
I don't think postponing this to another big release is going to do anyone any
good. You will not see magical revelations because it's postponed by another
year.
Greg, Stas, Dmitry all three have deep understanding of the issues. In fact, I
think we are closer to agreeing on a solution than it
Hi!
Users. And I think Lukas' approach is good - use alpha as a testing ground.
Namespaces are for big projects. Staring big project using namespaces
when it's not even clear they'll be in 5.3 is an insane risk, nobody
would do it.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTE
I recommend you and your fellow programmers read the discussion again.
It's nost just about syntax.
On 14.10.2008, at 21:53, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
People, why you just don't change the namespace separator to something
except :: and sole all the problems one and for all? God damn,
use :> i
Broad-scale testing with the ability to alter the implementation should
problems become apparent.
What you are talking about? Who'll be doing this broad-scale testing,
when?
Users. And I think Lukas' approach is good - use alpha as a testing ground.
- Steph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime D
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 20:41 +0100, Steph Fox wrote:
>
> Yeah... I never had a response to ::: so I guess that one's been dumped out
> of hand somewhere off-list, but darn I hate -> reuse with a passion!
The use of ::: is far to simple. Nobody would want an elegant intuitive
operator that uses 3 c
People, why you just don't change the namespace separator to something
except :: and sole all the problems one and for all? God damn, use :> if you
need - just push it out working! Most of my fellow programmers are just sick
with reading internals discussing how to throw a feathure away because
amb
Hi!
Broad-scale testing with the ability to alter the implementation should
problems become apparent.
What you are talking about? Who'll be doing this broad-scale testing, when?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL
If you can name something that could further our progress here and that
can be done after 5.3 but can't be done right now - name it.
Broad-scale testing with the ability to alter the implementation should
problems become apparent.
Otherwise I see absolutely no reason in postponing the decisi
Hi Lukas,
We have 4 options. We know how things are without namespaces, we know how
things are with the current implementation. This essentially leaves 2
choices that are untested for now.
True, true.
Both of these approaches have some uncleanness to them. If functions and
constants get
Hi!
The problem is we can't know whether restricting *future* evolution in
namespace support is going to turn out to be a good idea.
I think we have now all the information we could have without really
having it in the wild. Yes, we can make a mistake based on this
information, but I see no
On 14.10.2008, at 21:01, Steph Fox wrote:
We are in alpha indeed, and still looking at proposals, and still
without consensus. The last thing I'd want is to see namespace
support pushed under the carpet, but I'd rather see it at this
stage of development as part of the PHP 6 development cy
What would happen if we give the namespace implementation a chance to
mature is that it can be delivered as a fully-fledged language element
rather than a partially-fledged and potentially flawed one.
What do you mean by "chance to mature"? Only chance for it to mature is
people actually start
Hi!
What would happen if we give the namespace implementation a chance to
mature is that it can be delivered as a fully-fledged language element
rather than a partially-fledged and potentially flawed one.
What do you mean by "chance to mature"? Only chance for it to mature is
people actually
I can name two:
1. Most (not all, I know, but most) of the use cases for namespaces are in
the OO realm, and most of the problems they are to serve come from that
realm too. So at least initially most of the active users, which wait for
it impatiently, are OO users, and classes are the thing th
Stas,
We are in alpha indeed, and still looking at proposals, and still without
consensus. The last thing I'd want is to see namespace support pushed
under the carpet, but I'd rather see it at this stage of development as
part of the PHP 6 development cycle (as originally
Why? What would hap
Hi!
Can anybody come up with a good case for why functions and constant
should be 'thrown out with the bath water' ?
I can name two:
1. Most (not all, I know, but most) of the use cases for namespaces are
in the OO realm, and most of the problems they are to serve come from
that realm too. S
Hi Steph,
[snip]
This is very negative, Stas. "Everybody wants it so let's push it out
without testing". Do you really want a repeat of 5.0?
[/snip]
I don't think Stas is implying not to test it. We are talking about another
5.3 alpha, right? Clearly the beta and RC releases will allow the c
Hi!
We are in alpha indeed, and still looking at proposals, and still
without consensus. The last thing I'd want is to see namespace support
pushed under the carpet, but I'd rather see it at this stage of
development as part of the PHP 6 development cycle (as originally
Why? What would happ
Steph Fox wrote:
Hi Tony,
I don't think Stas is implying not to test it.
Which proposal do you think he's implying not to test? And which of the
other three proposals on offer do you think should go out there, bearing
in mind that once the thing's released it can't be changed?
I think tha
Hi,
Nobody talks about "without testing", we are in alpha. But I'm talking
about working on it, not pushing it under the carpet and hoping it somehow
gets better there. I am working on it, so do other people, but chanting
"let's remove it" is not working. If anything is "negative", this is.
Hi Tony,
I don't think Stas is implying not to test it.
Which proposal do you think he's implying not to test? And which of the
other three proposals on offer do you think should go out there, bearing in
mind that once the thing's released it can't be changed?
- Steph
--
PHP Internals -
Hi!
This is very negative, Stas. "Everybody wants it so let's push it out
without testing". Do you really want a repeat of 5.0?
Nobody talks about "without testing", we are in alpha. But I'm talking
about working on it, not pushing it under the carpet and hoping it
somehow gets better there.
Guys, a recomandation (about namespaces):
- if it's not tested enough, don't include it in the release.
- if it's going to make a lot of confusion, don't include it in the
release.
- if neither of the two above won't stop it being included,
and if there aren't 3 quarters (75
Hi Stas,
The thing is that there's nothing here that would improve with time.
Except the chance to test approaches that are currently only theories.
Pushing in to 6.0 is basically throwing it out forever, since there's
nothing we could do in 6.0 that we can't do now, there's nothing that we
Hi!
This is what I've be fearing. First slated for 5.0. Then 5.3. Now
6.0. It appears there's consensus to rip it out which, in my prior
post, I was all for if people felt it meant getting it right.
The thing is that there's nothing here that would improve with time.
Pushing in to 6.0 is
This is what I've be fearing. First slated for 5.0. Then 5.3. Now 6.0. It
appears there's consensus to rip it out which, in my prior post, I was all for
if people felt it meant getting it right. Apparently that is the case. I
guess my main question is what keeps this from being pushed yet
hi,
(wow, de-lurking twice in one day!)
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 04:06:11PM +0200, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> The last time it was discussed it was said we can't easily turn it on
> globally as it would interfere with "small" stat pointer received by
> Apache and others, nobody proposed a patch an
Tony Bibbs wrote:
This is what I've be fearing. First slated for 5.0. Then 5.3. Now 6.0. It appears
there's consensus to rip it out which, in my prior post, I was all for if people felt it
meant getting it right. Apparently that is the case. I guess my main question is what
keeps this fr
On 14.10.2008, at 15:03, Markus Fischer wrote:
Hi,
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
That being said I never used this function or the constants in my
code. So is there anyone that does actually use it and has some
objection?
Me neither, but in such cases it's probably a good idea to take a
loo
On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 20:30 +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> 1) http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=27792
>
> I know we have been talking about LFS since ages (just as we have been
> talking about expanding the storage limit for integers). But I would
> not consider this a bug let alone critical.
Hi Vesselin,
I see the point and objections against "quick and dirty", but on the other
hand the discussion about the namespaces started long time ago - two years
already?
Longer than that - they were thrown out in 5.0 too.
If for two years there wasn't an agreement how they have to be
impl
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:27 PM, David Zülke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am 14.10.2008 um 14:10 schrieb Steph Fox:
>
> On 10 Oct 2008, at 06:03, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> 1) rip them out
>
> I'm +1 on this. We simply don't have consensus, and I don't see anyway
>
I see the point and objections against "quick and dirty", but on the other
hand the discussion about the namespaces started long time ago - two years
already? If for two years there wasn't an agreement how they have to be
implemented (or even whether to add them at all! because I see many comments
hi there,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 09:55:27AM +0200, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Krister Karlström
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > About this bug #44872, I run my small sample script (posted on the bug
> > reporting page) through valgrind and got the attached output. I'm
Am 14.10.2008 um 14:10 schrieb Steph Fox:
> On 10 Oct 2008, at 06:03, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> 1) rip them out
>
> I'm +1 on this. We simply don't have consensus, and I don't see
anyway > we
> can have consensus by the time 5.3 has to be frozen. Once
namespaces > are in,
> we're gonna h
Am 14.10.2008 um 14:39 schrieb Steph Fox:
Many people have starting working on top level application using
namespaces, so there will a very bad buzz over the php community if
namespaces are ripped out...
People working with a development branch take their own chances. We
keep BC for released
Jochem Maas wrote:
1) rip them out
+1 ... I concur with Steph's opinion
Also +1 for taking them out.
Namespaces should be saved for PHP 6 IMO as well. Now that the current
namespaces have been tested there is at least a starting point for
discussion. And that discussion has started as ever
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> There was an offline exchange, which generated a lot of good ideas, but
> that failed to find agreement for one final proposal among the
> participants. I had hoped that the results would have been mailed to
> this list yesterday. Since I am going on yet anot
Major changes like ripping the feature that most people are looking
forward to
in 5.3 out?
'Most people'? I would've expected 'most people' to be writing code that
will run under 5.1 for at least the next couple of years! Experience tells
me that takeup of new language elements is slow, and t
Hi,
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
That being said I never used this function or the constants in my code.
So is there anyone that does actually use it and has some objection?
Me neither, but in such cases it's probably a good idea to take a look
at code search machines, e.g.
http://www.google.co
I'm very happy with the current implementation of the namespaces, so my vote
would be to keep it as it is.
Otherwise my "fallback vote" would be for the '->' operator.
I do find the namespaces very useful and I would like to see them in
whatever shape in 5.3.
> 1) Rip them out
> 2) Keep as is
>
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Jean-philippe Serafin <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Many people have starting working on top level application using
> namespaces, so there will a very bad buzz over the php community if
> namespaces are ripped out...
There code should work fine in PHP 6 without
On Tuesday 14 October 2008 14:10:50 Steph Fox wrote:
> I'm +1 on ripping out and leaving til 6.0. I don't think there is enough
> time between now and the 5.3.0 code freeze to make major changes to the
> language syntax.
Major changes like ripping the feature that most people are looking forward
Many people have starting working on top level application using
namespaces, so there will a very bad buzz over the php community if
namespaces are ripped out...
People working with a development branch take their own chances. We keep BC
for released code, not for dev code.
- Steph
--
PHP
Can you try to compile PHP with --disable-all --enable-debug and a
flag for the mssql extension, then try to run valgrind. From the
output it seems there maybe errors in dl() library.
On 14-Oct-08, at 4:15 AM, Krister Karlström wrote:
Hi,
I run the script on a server in our production env
Hi Lukas,
Just for the record, I was suggesting to add the E_STRICT in PHP6, not in
PHP 5.3.
I'd missed that, but it doesn't make a whole lot of difference IMHO. The
reuse of an existing symbol is going to bring problems, and if we do it now
we'll be blocking the possibility of a better res
On 14.10.2008, at 14:10, Steph Fox wrote:
I'm +1 on ripping out and leaving til 6.0. I don't think there is
enough time between now and the 5.3.0 code freeze to make major
changes to the language syntax. Making -> do double duty and adding
E_STRICT messages to currently legal code reall
Steph Fox schreef:
>>> > On 10 Oct 2008, at 06:03, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 1) rip them out
+1 ... I concur with Steph's opinion
>>> >
>>> > I'm +1 on this. We simply don't have consensus, and I don't see
>>> anyway > we
>>> > can have consensus by the time 5.3 has to be frozen. Once
We use syslog a lot. I've always found define_syslog_variables to be
pointless and frankly a little bizarre.
+1 on this.
John.
-Original Message-
From: Lukas Kahwe Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 October 2008 08:42
To: Kalle Sommer Nielsen
Cc: PHP Development
Subject: Re: [PHP-
> On 10 Oct 2008, at 06:03, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> 1) rip them out
>
> I'm +1 on this. We simply don't have consensus, and I don't see anyway
> we
> can have consensus by the time 5.3 has to be frozen. Once namespaces
> are in,
> we're gonna have to stick with whatever we choose, unless w
Hi Kalle,
Am Dienstag, den 14.10.2008, 04:04 +0200 schrieb Kalle Sommer Nielsen:
[...]
> Therefore I propose the function is being deprecated in 5.3 and removed in
> HEAD.
+1
cu, Lars
--
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Weblog: http://usrportage.de
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digi
Le mardi 14 octobre 2008 à 09:12 +0100, James Dempster a écrit :
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Geoffrey Sneddon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > On 10 Oct 2008, at 06:03, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> >
> > 1) rip them out
> >>
> >
> > I'm +1 on this. We simply don't have consensus, an
Hi,
I run the script on a server in our production environment, a slackware
server with a self compiled PHP from source. The PHP version was 5.2.5.
php-v gives the following:
PHP 5.2.5 (cli) (built: Mar 28 2008 12:02:55)
Copyright (c) 1997-2007 The PHP Group
Zend Engine v2.2.0, Copyright (c)
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Geoffrey Sneddon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> On 10 Oct 2008, at 06:03, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> 1) rip them out
>>
>
> I'm +1 on this. We simply don't have consensus, and I don't see anyway we
> can have consensus by the time 5.3 has to be frozen. Once nam
hi,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Krister Karlström
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> About this bug #44872, I run my small sample script (posted on the bug
> reporting page) through valgrind and got the attached output. I'm not sure
> whether this shows that there's a leak in the mssql extension or
On 14.10.2008, at 04:04, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
Hello internals
I've been looking at the function define_syslog_variables(), and I'm
unsure if its intentional to keep this old functionality in PHP,
seeing as define_syslog_variables defines a shortcut for each of the
LOG_* constants in the
On 10.10.2008, at 19:02, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
It should be noted that this proposal builds on Stas previous proposal
after Zendcon
1. Allow braces for namespaces. So, the syntax for namespaces will be:
a) namespace foo;
should be first (non-comment) statement in the file, namespace
e
78 matches
Mail list logo
