2011/6/8 David Zülke :
> On 08.06.2011, at 00:38, dukeofgaming wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <
>> weierophin...@php.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-06-07, dukeofgaming wrote:
>>>
+1 for "callable", it is really more consistent.
>>>
>>> I was actually agreeing
On 08.06.2011, at 00:38, dukeofgaming wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <
> weierophin...@php.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-06-07, dukeofgaming wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for "callable", it is really more consistent.
>>
>> I was actually agreeing With David and Stas that "callb
On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 21:03 +0200, David Zülke wrote:
> 144 (not 114!) bytes is for an integer; I'm not quite sure what the
> overheads are for arrays, which token_get_all() produces in
> abundance :) An empty array seems to occupy 312 bytes of memory.
>
> Also, strings have memory allocated in 8
2011/6/7 Johannes Schlüter :
> That's why there are package
> managers or the windows Installer bundling some PECL stuff (or MSFT's
> Web Installer thingy)
The msft thingy as you call it does not support update and is a simple
wrapper around our own installer (which uses MSI).
We (php-win) woul
On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 12:12 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/callable
>
> It is good there's an RFC. However it seems to lack code examples. I
> understand it may be obvious to the proposers how it looks like, but
> it'd be nice to have the actual example there a
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <
weierophin...@php.net> wrote:
> On 2011-06-07, dukeofgaming wrote:
> > --0016e68ee3e4bc4b0e04a525bac6
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > +1 for "callable", it is really
On 06/06/2011 10:56 AM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 10:18 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote:
The only way, currently, that projects can predict what a given host
will have installed is "bundled in core PHP". If it's in the core PHP
bundle, we can *usually* expect it to be there. I
On 2011-06-07, dukeofgaming wrote:
> --0016e68ee3e4bc4b0e04a525bac6
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> +1 for "callable", it is really more consistent.
I was actually agreeing With David and Stas that "callback" was more
consistent, an
+1 for "callable", it is really more consistent.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <
weierophin...@php.net> wrote:
> On 2011-06-07, David Zülke wrote:
> > On 07.06.2011, at 22:31, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> >
> > > Hi!
> > > > callback is callable, the opposite could not be tru
On 2011-06-07, David Zülke wrote:
> On 07.06.2011, at 22:31, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> > > callback is callable, the opposite could not be true. a string
> > > --or a closure-- is callable, but the string is not a callback
> >
> According to our docs, which were out there for years, it is
To be honest: everybody knows what you mean when you say callback.
Callable sounds more like the name of an interface.
On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 22:32 +0200, David Zülke wrote:
> On 07.06.2011, at 22:31, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> >> callback is callable, the opposite could not be true.
>
hi Stas,
I have to say that we should apply our upcoming voting rule here as well.
If we don't, pls count -1 from here anyway.
Cheers,
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/callable
>
> It is good there's an RFC. However it seems to lack code
On 07.06.2011, at 22:31, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> callback is callable, the opposite could not be true.
>> a string --or a closure-- is callable, but the string is not a callback
>
> According to our docs, which were out there for years, it is. One of the main
> and widespread complaints
Hi!
callback is callable, the opposite could not be true.
a string --or a closure-- is callable, but the string is not a callback
According to our docs, which were out there for years, it is. One of the
main and widespread complaints about PHP is the lack of any system in
naming, design and
callback is callable, the opposite could not be true.
a string --or a closure-- is callable, but the string is not a callback
IMHO callable fits better.
Martin Scotta
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:28 PM, David Zülke wrote:
> On 07.06.2011, at 21:12, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> >> https://
> For me personally it makes zero sense that having just removed strict typing
> we are introducing it back through back door, but if everybody likes it so
> be it.
It's strict typing to have a type-hint that can be matched by 4
different constructs (string function names, arrays, closures,
invoka
On 07.06.2011, at 21:12, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/callable
>
> Note also that this pseudo-type is called "callback" in all of our
> documentation, which means we have now documentation that says:
>
> bool array_walk ( array &$array , callback $funcname [, mixed
Hi!
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/callable
It is good there's an RFC. However it seems to lack code examples. I
understand it may be obvious to the proposers how it looks like, but
it'd be nice to have the actual example there as it is done nearly
everywhere else.
The patch introduces new zval
On 07.06.2011, at 12:09, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> Sure. How about reducing boilterplate code like this:
>>
>> if(is_readable($foo)) {
>> $var = file_get_contents($foo);
>> } else {
>> throw InvalidArgumentException();
>> }
>>
>> Why won'
144 (not 114!) bytes is for an integer; I'm not quite sure what the overheads
are for arrays, which token_get_all() produces in abundance :) An empty array
seems to occupy 312 bytes of memory.
Also, strings have memory allocated in 8 byte increments as far as I know, so
"1" eats up 8 bytes, and
Hi!
Am I now supposed to create a new thread with [RFC] in the subject,
wait for minimum 2 weeks, and then create a poll somewhere on the wiki
and create new thread with [VOTE] in subject, and wait for another
2weeks and then if accepted by 50%+1 php.net developer, and 60% of the
community votes
Am i then also correct to assume that the output of
memory_get_peak_usage is used for determining the memory_limit?
Also: after correcting with your new information (zval = 114 bytes
instead of 68) I still have a rather large offset:
640952+2165950+114+(276697*114)+(276697*3*114)+2165950 = 13
On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Philip Olson wrote:
>
>> And this is a call for someone or some people to do the work by raising a
>> hand, posting an RFC, writing code, whatever it takes. But I think people
>> assume either it's going to even
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Philip Olson wrote:
> And this is a call for someone or some people to do the work by raising a
> hand, posting an RFC, writing code, whatever it takes. But I think people
> assume either it's going to eventually happen, or that php.net is happy with
> the curre
On Jun 7, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Philip Olson wrote:
>>> I don't feel quite so bad now about not being able to update my own builds,
>>> but a matching Additional Extensions section for the x86 builds would just
>>> finish the picture.
>>
>> If
memory_get_peak_usage() is the maximum amount of memory used by the VM of PHP
(but not by some extensions for instance) up until the point where that
function is called. So the actual memory usage may be even higher IIRC. But
yeah, you're basically right. I've explained in another message why it
Before I forget; without gc_collect_cycles I get the following output
using memory_get_usage instead of memory_get_peak_usage:
int(634640)
int(635392)
Mike
On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 19:44 +0200, Mike van Riel wrote:
> I have ran the script that you provided and got the following results:
>
I have ran the script that you provided and got the following results:
int(635192)
int(635944)
Which is far less than the peak memory result.
I use memory_get_peak_usage to measure what the worst case memory output
is in my application. I expect this to be the actual memory used (and
thu
> My reasoning is simple. The key for bundling extensions is to have
> them available for most hosting solutions. If a shared host provides
> support for mongodb, then he will most likely enable the mongodb
> extension in php, if he knows what he is doing. The same applies for
> all other non core
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Philip Olson wrote:
>> I don't feel quite so bad now about not being able to update my own builds,
>> but a matching Additional Extensions section for the x86 builds would just
>> finish the picture.
>
> If the PHP+Windows community developed a reliable system tha
So, here we go, simple prototype of what John suggested:
- Test Case:
https://github.com/lstrojny/functional-php/blob/playground/tests/Functional
/CurryTest.php
- Implementation:
https://github.com/lstrojny/functional-php/blob/playground/src/Functional/C
urry.php
With regards,
Lars
Am 07.06.
> Hey John,
>
> What about writing your curry idea in plain PHP, as a proof of concept.
> Then you can show examples live and others can toy with it.
>
> I'm pretty sure most php developers are not used to curry -- or at least
> those who don't have functional programming skills
I'll consider t
> I don't feel quite so bad now about not being able to update my own builds,
> but a matching Additional Extensions section for the x86 builds would just
> finish the picture.
If the PHP+Windows community developed a reliable system that built [most] all
PECL extensions, then we would link to
Hi Martin,
Am 07.06.11 17:09 schrieb "Martin Scotta" unter :
[...]
>Hey Jhon,
>
>What about writing your curry idea in plain PHP, as a proof of concept.
>Then you can show examples live and others can toy with it.
Yep, working on it.
With regards,
Lars
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Developm
On 2011-06-07, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 22:49, Christopher Jones
> wrote:
> > On 06/06/2011 12:41 PM, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
> > > See attached patch+phpt; Any objections to include it in 5.4?
> >
> > Hannes,
> >
> > How about putting up an RFC for it? Even a brief RFC w
From: Hannes Landeholm [mailto:landeh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 11:50 AM
To: John Crenshaw; internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Inline constructing/cloning and inline foreach listing
On 7 June 2011 15:53, John Crenshaw
mailto:johncrens...@priacta.com>> wrote:
> forea
-Original Message-
From: Lars Strojny [mailto:l...@strojny.net]
> >I understand where this can be useful sometimes, but I disagree that this
> >should be added as a language feature. It is still possible to implement
> >this (parameter positioning in your curried function) using a function
On 7 June 2011 15:53, John Crenshaw wrote:
> > foreach ($arrays as list($e1, $e2, $e3)) { ...
>
> Disagree. This feels very obtuse. I wouldn't expect this construct to work
> at all, and even if it did, it is highly ambiguous (I.E. at first I thought
> you were intending to grab 3 entries at a ti
Dne 6.6.2011 21:41, Hannes Magnusson napsal(a):
Hi
As quickly mentioned in the '$arr = array('Hello', 'world'); $arr();'
thread[1], we are hitting the need for a callable typehint.
See attached patch+phpt; Any objections to include it in 5.4?
-Hannes
[1] http://php.markmail.org/message/gdas6
.4.5-1.fc14.rh.20110522.x86_64.rpm
mod_security-2.6.0-3.fc14.rh.20110526.x86_64
php-suhosin-0.9.32.1-13.fc14.rh.20110526.x86_64
mysql-server-5.5.13-2.fc14.rh.20110601.x86_64
phpMyAdmin-3.4.2-2.fc14.rh.20110607.noarch.rpm
disable_functions: popen, pclose, exec, passthru, shell_exec, system, proc_o
Martin Scotta
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:43 AM, John Crenshaw wrote:
> >$apos = curry strpos(..., 'a'));
> >$apos(); // runtime error wrong param count?
> >$apos("bar"); // fine
> >$apos("bar", "foo"); // 'a' casted to long, used as offset?
> >$apos("bar", "foo", 0); // run
Hi John,
thanks for your feedback.
Am 07.06.11 15:43 schrieb "John Crenshaw" unter :
[...]
>I understand where this can be useful sometimes, but I disagree that this
>should be added as a language feature. It is still possible to implement
>this (parameter positioning in your curried function) us
Martin Scotta
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:32 AM, David Muir wrote:
> On 07/06/11 15:49, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> > Am 07.06.2011 04:42, schrieb Martin Scotta:
> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Reindl Harald >wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am 06.06.2011 23:40, schrieb Martin Scotta:
> >>>
> It'd be
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Martin Scotta wrote:
>
>
> Martin Scotta
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Reindl Harald > >wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Am 07.06.2011 15:08, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
>> > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:04 PM, R
Martin Scotta
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Reindl Harald >wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Am 07.06.2011 15:08, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
> > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Reindl Harald > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Am 07.06.2011 14:44,
One thing to keep in mind of course is that each zval incurs an overhead. $x =
1; requires 144 bytes of memory in total IIRC.
David
On 04.06.2011, at 23:38, Mike van Riel wrote:
> Dear Internals,
>
> During development of DocBlox I encountered a (for me) unusual situation
> with regards to me
Damn I'm an idiot. I meant memory_get_usage() all along. Sorry Mike. Then it'll
make sense... memory_get_usage(), but a gc_collect_cycles() before the second
call.
So, my first email should have had this code in it:
var_dump(memory_get_usage());
token_get_all(file_get_contents(''));
var_dump(me
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:28 PM, David Zülke wrote:
> Please test the exact thing I suggested :)
>
AFAIK he did.
" int(640720)
int(244001144)"
except if you suggested something else off-list.
Tyrael
Please test the exact thing I suggested :)
var_dump(memory_get_usage());
token_get_all(file_get_contents());
gc_collect_cycles();
var_dump(memory_get_usage());
memory_get_peak_usage() is irrelevant, and USE_ZEND_ALLOC won't give accurate
results anymore when looking at memory usage.
If the abov
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 16:04, Richard Quadling wrote:
> On 7 June 2011 15:00, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 22:49, Christopher Jones
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/06/2011 12:41 PM, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>>>
See attached patch+phpt; Any objections to include it in 5.4?
>>
On 7 June 2011 15:00, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 22:49, Christopher Jones
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06/06/2011 12:41 PM, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>>
>>> See attached patch+phpt; Any objections to include it in 5.4?
>>
>> Hannes,
>>
>> How about putting up an RFC for it? Even a br
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 22:49, Christopher Jones
wrote:
>
>
> On 06/06/2011 12:41 PM, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>
>> See attached patch+phpt; Any objections to include it in 5.4?
>
> Hannes,
>
> How about putting up an RFC for it? Even a brief RFC would be better than
> none.
>
https://wiki.php.net
> // Inline constructing:
> $car = (new CarFactory())->makeCar();
> // Inline cloning:
> $tomorrow = (clone $today)->add($one_day);
Agreed. The fact that these expressions can't be wrapped in parentheses never
made any sense to me.
> foreach ($arrays as list($e1, $e2, $e3)) { ...
Disagree. This
Hi,
2011/6/7 Hannes Landeholm
> Hi,
>
> I like to do stuff "inline" instead of cluttering my code with variables.
> There are currently three syntaxes/expressions which are currently not
> supported but I hope could be implemented until 5.4.
>
> First inline constructing (which I think has alrea
>$apos = curry strpos(..., 'a'));
>$apos(); // runtime error wrong param count?
>$apos("bar"); // fine
>$apos("bar", "foo"); // 'a' casted to long, used as offset?
>$apos("bar", "foo", 0); // run-time error wrong param count?
I understand where this can be useful sometimes, b
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 07.06.2011 15:08, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Reindl Harald >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 07.06.2011 14:44, schrieb David Muir:
> >>> On 07/06/11 18:40, Reindl Harald wrote:
> there is a reason for e
Hi,
I like to do stuff "inline" instead of cluttering my code with variables.
There are currently three syntaxes/expressions which are currently not
supported but I hope could be implemented until 5.4.
First inline constructing (which I think has already previously been
discussed), but also cloni
Am 07.06.2011 15:08, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 07.06.2011 14:44, schrieb David Muir:
>>> On 07/06/11 18:40, Reindl Harald wrote:
there is a reason for example to disallow many functions
on a webserver - so every API has
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 07.06.2011 14:44, schrieb David Muir:
> > On 07/06/11 18:40, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> there is a reason for example to disallow many functions
> >> on a webserver - so every API has to make sure they
> >> can not be bypassed
> >>
> >>
Am 07.06.2011 14:44, schrieb David Muir:
> On 07/06/11 18:40, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> there is a reason for example to disallow many functions
>> on a webserver - so every API has to make sure they
>> can not be bypassed
>>
>> "because we can" is no valid reason for everything because
>> we can i
On 06/07/2011 09:36 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Pierre Joye wrote:
>> Lester,
>>
>> We are now all aware of your constant bashing about our work for php
>> on windows, but could you please give us some rest and post this
>> wherever you like.
>>
>> And no you won't get a official ok for this build or
On 07/06/11 18:40, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 07.06.2011 11:32, schrieb David Muir:
>> On 07/06/11 15:49, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> Am 07.06.2011 04:42, schrieb Martin Scotta:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
> Am 06.06.2011 23:40, schrieb Martin Scotta:
Pierre Joye wrote:
Lester,
We are now all aware of your constant bashing about our work for php
on windows, but could you please give us some rest and post this
wherever you like.
And no you won't get a official ok for this build or any other but
what we have already numerous times discuss. The
Hi Johannes,
Thank you very much for your detailed feedback.
Am 07.06.11 12:40 schrieb "Johannes Schlüter" unter
:
[...]
>I wonder how your proposal would work with a variable number of
>arguments.
>
>Taking a piece out of your RFC:
>$apos = curry strpos(..., 'a'));
>Would the parameter alway
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Short-array syntax, Native JSON, "Currying". I can
> almost only say one thing: WHY?!
>
> And because of that, I'd like to forward a mail by Zeev from a few years
> ago. I think it applies now even more than then:
>
> snip
I think t
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Short-array syntax, Native JSON, "Currying". I can
> almost only say one thing: WHY?!
>
> And because of that, I'd like to forward a mail by Zeev from a few years
> ago. I think it applies now even more than then:
I'd to disagree.
I
Hi,
Short-array syntax, Native JSON, "Currying". I can
almost only say one thing: WHY?!
And because of that, I'd like to forward a mail by Zeev from a few years
ago. I think it applies now even more than then:
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:57:32 +0200
From:
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 01:28 +0200, Lars Strojny wrote:
> I¹ve finally found some time to put together a first draft of an RFC for
> currying (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/currying). This is basically meant as a
> starting point to find a clean and concise syntax for PHP. So, if you
> kinda like what yo
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Sure. How about reducing boilterplate code like this:
>
> if(is_readable($foo)) {
> $var = file_get_contents($foo);
> } else {
> throw InvalidArgumentException();
> }
>
> Why won't we make language construct to do that too? I don't think th
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> People who are building critical systems are in a position to make a choice,
> and THEY will not be using windows. But PHP was origianlly 'Personal Home
> Page' and I am sure that as many people are using PHP because of the
> 'personal' elemen
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Rasmus wrote:
> On 06/06/2011 08:38 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> And much like Apache, I don't consider it our job to do binary builds
> for people. It is very nice that a few people have volunteered to build
> Windows binaries and they are available on windows.php.ne
Am 07.06.2011 11:32, schrieb David Muir:
> On 07/06/11 15:49, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 07.06.2011 04:42, schrieb Martin Scotta:
>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
Am 06.06.2011 23:40, schrieb Martin Scotta:
> It'd be very nice if some extension could b
Lester,
We are now all aware of your constant bashing about our work for php
on windows, but could you please give us some rest and post this
wherever you like.
And no you won't get a official ok for this build or any other but
what we have already numerous times discuss. The same applies even
mo
On 07/06/11 15:49, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 07.06.2011 04:42, schrieb Martin Scotta:
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>> Am 06.06.2011 23:40, schrieb Martin Scotta:
>>>
It'd be very nice if some extension could be enabled just by dropping the
"extension file"
I've cross posted to the windows list as this is a useful link!
http://www.anindya.com/
I don't feel quite so bad now about not being able to update my own builds, but
a matching Additional Extensions section for the x86 builds would just finish
the picture.
I'm just waiting for an OK to use
75 matches
Mail list logo
