2008/10/26 Johannes Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 14:32 +0100, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
>> So, I propose its either being a "supported" feature, or simply put an
>> deprecation notice on it (5.3) and remove it HEAD. I personally vote
>> for the last option, as I don't thi
2008/10/27 Cristian Rodríguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Im truly sorry, looking at the horrendously ugly example code, I just
> hope the average joe programmer dont touch this feature and stay with
> class prefixes for sanity sake.
If by "don't touch" you mean "don't even try" then I'd say it's not
2008/10/27 Guilherme Blanco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi guys,
>
>
> I'm really interested to read the IRC conversation logs.
> Does anyone recorded it?
If you follow the link [1] from the first mail, you'll find the log
you're looking for in the References section.
[1] http://wiki.php.net/rfc/names
Lukas Kahwe Smith escribió:
> The result is that we have decided to go with
> backslash as new separator for namespaces.
Im truly sorry, looking at the horrendously ugly example code, I just
hope the average joe programmer dont touch this feature and stay with
class prefixes for sanity sake.
I un
Hi guys,
I'm really interested to read the IRC conversation logs.
Does anyone recorded it?
Regards,
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Greg Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stan Vassilev | FM wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I want to thank you all for opting for the technically sound, clear and
>> per
Hi lover,
(sorry, couldn't resist)
The correct syntax is:
Note that static class elements are accessed using T_DOUBLE_COLON (::),
and that the namespace separator \ is used to join namespace and element
name.
OK... thanks for the clarification. That does actually make perfect sense to
me,
On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 21:46 -0500, Greg Beaver wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 09:28 +1030, Andrew Mason wrote:
> >> So can I just confirm that what was previously
> >>
> >> >>
> >> $x = new Framework::Utils::Foo();
> >> $y = new Project::PEAR:
Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 09:28 +1030, Andrew Mason wrote:
>> So can I just confirm that what was previously
>>
>> >
>> $x = new Framework::Utils::Foo();
>> $y = new Project::PEAR::Bar( 'somestring' );
>>
>>
>> ?>
>>
>> is now
>>
>> >
>>
Hi Rob,
Wouldn't it be:
Yes, as I understand it.
- Steph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 09:28 +1030, Andrew Mason wrote:
> So can I just confirm that what was previously
>
>
> $x = new Framework::Utils::Foo();
> $y = new Project::PEAR::Bar( 'somestring' );
>
>
> ?>
>
> is now
>
>
> $x = new Framework\Utils\Foo();
Yes, it does not mean that I was able to actually attend the meeting.
Because... oh wait. It wasn't important to you.
OK OK I'm not going to push this publicly. Just pointing out that most of
us
keep irc logs.
Preaching by example.
I didn't want to push this publicly, Pierre. Remember tha
Hi,
I'm not sure what's the hell is going on with you and Step,
OK, Pierre. You got us. Greg and I have been secret lovers for the last 5
years and we've been planning to take over php.net the whole of that time.
but if we
can't answer to any of your mails without being accused of personal
Hi,
Someone mentioned that it is possible to change keybindings so that it
is easier to do [] {} and \. The only post I've found that mentions
anything about this is
http://chneukirchen.org/blog/archive/2007/12/wie-man-die-macbook-tastatur-unter-leopard-entnervt.html
Are there other sources tha
2008/10/26 Andrew Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So can I just confirm that what was previously
>
>
> $x = new Framework::Utils::Foo();
> $y = new Project::PEAR::Bar( 'somestring' );
>
>
> ?>
>
> is now
>
>
> $x = new Framework\Utils\Foo();
> $y =
So can I just confirm that what was previously
is now
Is this correct ?
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Nathan Rixham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Beaver wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Let me make this brief: there will be lots of complaining about the
>> namespace separator.
>>
>> Stop
Greg Beaver wrote:
Hi all,
Let me make this brief: there will be lots of complaining about the
namespace separator.
Stop. Now.
It serves no possible useful purpose. If you want to discuss why this
was chosen or suggest alternatives, feel free to write me *off-list*. I
would be more than hap
hi Greg,
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Greg Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Go ahead and attack my character if you feel it serves some purpose and
> benefits PHP. I on the other hand will continue to post actual
> solutions, patches and discuss them.
I'm not sure what's the hell is goin
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Pierre,
>
>>> You were actually online throughout it, and were notified that it was
>>> happening at the start. In fact you were the first person to blog the
>>> outcome of the meeting.
>>
>> "I'm" always online, bot/proxy.
Pierre Joye wrote:
> @Greg and Steph: Private discussions are bad. Or are you trying to say
> that this list can't be used as a discussion platform (even heated)?
> If we like to have a developer only list, let do it, but keep things
> in the public area, that's the only way to keep our decision p
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 22:19, Pierre Joye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To make my point more clear: I respect the decision even if I'm not
> completely happy about it
As do I. So lets kill this thread, unless you want the cool slashdot
guys to post more FUD referencing this thread.
-Hannes
--
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
>> Excuse me but while the idea to have an online meeting was great,
>> sending a mail to ask to attend an online meeting 24 hours before and
>> on a Friday was not a wised choice. I would have participated too if
On 26.10.2008, at 22:19, Pierre Joye wrote:
To make my point more clear: I respect the decision even if I'm not
completely happy about it (that's what we call a compromise). But my
comment to Greg and Steph was about the danger of abusing of private
discussions not about having held this meetin
Hi Pierre,
Excuse me but while the idea to have an online meeting was great,
sending a mail to ask to attend an online meeting 24 hours before and
on a Friday was not a wised choice. I would have participated too if
it was during this week or the next weekend.
You were actually online througho
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As was evident from the discussions in the past weeks, a lot of people
> commented, most of which did not spend the necessary time to actually
> understand the issues at hand. Given that it did indeed make it impossible
On 26.10.2008, at 21:59, Pierre Joye wrote:
Hi Lukas,
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Sebastian, you have not participated in the discussion so far. Now
you post
a rumor you picked up on IRC into an already heated situation. You
do know
full
Hi Lukas,
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sebastian, you have not participated in the discussion so far. Now you post
> a rumor you picked up on IRC into an already heated situation. You do know
> full well that it does not require you to point out
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Greg Beaver wrote:
>> The decision is made, now I suggest everyone get busy actually trying
>> it out.
>
> How are we supposed to try it out? There is no updated implementation
> yet, and I would rather discuss a specification instead.
As Steph pointed out, I toiled
And I must agree with Sebastian: How do you test something that isn't even
implemented yet? :D
You apply the 'rough draft' patch against PHP_5_3 :D
http://pear.php.net/~greg/backslash.sep.patch.txt
As referenced in the original rfc for the backslash approach cited at
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/n
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 26.10.2008, at 19:07, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Greg Beaver wrote:
The decision is made, now I suggest everyone get busy actually trying
it out.
How are we supposed to try it out? There is no updated implementation
yet, and I would rather discuss a specification in
On 26.10.2008, at 19:07, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Greg Beaver wrote:
The decision is made, now I suggest everyone get busy actually trying
it out.
How are we supposed to try it out? There is no updated implementation
yet, and I would rather discuss a specification instead.
It was mentioned
Greg Beaver wrote:
> The decision is made, now I suggest everyone get busy actually trying
> it out.
How are we supposed to try it out? There is no updated implementation
yet, and I would rather discuss a specification instead.
It was mentioned on IRC that internal functions have to be prefixe
Hi all,
Let me make this brief: there will be lots of complaining about the
namespace separator.
Stop. Now.
It serves no possible useful purpose. If you want to discuss why this
was chosen or suggest alternatives, feel free to write me *off-list*. I
would be more than happy to answer any ques
Stan Vassilev | FM wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I want to thank you all for opting for the technically sound, clear and
> performant solution. Of course some users will never understand the
> precise reasons :: was avoided, but it's something we'll have to live
> with, given some past design choices in PHP
Thanks for another great argument to move away from PHP asap.
On 25.10.2008, at 20:07, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
that we have decided to go with backslash as new separator for
namespaces.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.p
On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 14:32 +0100, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> So, I propose its either being a "supported" feature, or simply put an
> deprecation notice on it (5.3) and remove it HEAD. I personally vote
> for the last option, as I don't think resources should be constants as
> they do not have
Tudor Prodan wrote:
PHP has to be unique, using the double colon notation would be too
cliche, but if we're not respecting conventions, why not go with
something more exotic? I've always liked the o with the slash trough
it. The e with the horizontal colon is also pretty nice. The n with
the tild
Gday internals
Today I felt over a topic while looking at some documentation bugs,
and as the title says its the Resource constants. From what I could
understand by asking Felipe and reading over some bug reports and such
then resource constants aren't really supported. I had a play around
with it
Hi,
PHP has to be unique, using the double colon notation would be too
cliche, but if we're not respecting conventions, why not go with
something more exotic? I've always liked the o with the slash trough
it. The e with the horizontal colon is also pretty nice. The n with
the tilde over it, it so
2008/10/23 Hannes Magnusson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:26, Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:51, Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. You can always simply put a short comment like "Fixed in
Ok, for short: "Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war." The fact that
they chose '\' instead of ::: or anything else is going to be a killer to
teach for novice PHP devs.
Just my 0.02$ ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Stan Vassilev | FM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, October
Hi,
I want to thank you all for opting for the technically sound, clear and
performant solution. Of course some users will never understand the precise
reasons :: was avoided, but it's something we'll have to live with, given
some past design choices in PHP.
Regarding "foo\tbar" turning int
41 matches
Mail list logo
