Am 05.08.2011 08:07, schrieb Rasmus Lerdorf:
Ticks have been in PHP forever. See
http://www.php.net/manual/en/control-structures.declare.php#control-structures.declare.ticks
woha! interesting read. thanks:)
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://w
On 08/04/2011 11:00 PM, Lars Schultz wrote:
> Could you explain ticks?...to me a tick is a nasty little creature that
> bites and gives you infections;)
Ticks have been in PHP forever. See
http://www.php.net/manual/en/control-structures.declare.php#control-structures.declare.ticks
-Rasmus
--
PH
Am 04.08.2011 23:19, schrieb Chris Stockton:
I myself oppose WeakReference in java and I do not see my opinion
changing for PHP ... unfortunately I think WeakReference's are even
nastier in PHP because of it's error handling. You see it is very
common when weak references are used in java too fol
Thanks you!
I try find it on http://php.net/mailing-lists.php, but there are no this
maillists.
2011/8/4 Ferenc Kovacs
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Sokolov Evgeniy wrote:
> > Hi All.
> >
> > I can't find RSS channel or maillist for https://bugs.php.net. If it
> exists?
> >
>
> the genera
Hello,
I came across this little library called TameJS (http://tamejs.org/) and
fell in love with the it's syntax. This had me thinking if it was possible
to add such features to a PHP CLI (or web app):
fetchAll();
// do something here
?>
The "await" keyword marks a section of code that depends
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> Hi guys.
>
> a few days ago I did a little modifications on
> web/php-bugs/trunk/include/php_versions.php so now it fetch the
> version information from http://qa.php.net/api.php and
> http://www.php.net/releases/index.php
> so if everything
Hello!
Stas has packed PHP 5.4.0alpha3 which you can find here:
http://downloads.php.net/stas/
The Windows team provides windows binaries which you find here:
http://windows.php.net/qa/
Please test it carefully, and report any bugs in the bug system, but
only if you have a short reprod
Hi!
On 8/4/11 2:02 PM, Jezz Goodwin wrote:
Your argument goes back to whether or not PHP should have short-hand
lambdas in general. It's looking like the majority of people think it
shouldn't.
And really, PHP doesn't need more cryptic syntax. There are many things
that PHP does need (like peo
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> so as I see you didn't really addressed the proposed use-case of the
> Weak References, just stated what everybody is aware of: one can cache
> and free objects "manually" without the need of Weak References.
> and while that is true,
Haha, yes indeed. In fact my Thunderbird was changing them to sad
smileys until I disabled emoticons!
Colon is one of many possibilities.
Your argument goes back to whether or not PHP should have short-hand
lambdas in general. It's looking like the majority of people think it
shouldn't.
O
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
> On 8/4/11 5:34 AM, Lars Schultz wrote:
>>>
>>> Do not keep object references, keep object IDs. This would make your
>>> code a bit more verbose and a bit slower, but weak refs would
>>> essentially do the same anyway.
>>
>> This is like
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 21:17 +0100, Jezz Goodwin wrote:
> :($x)=>$x+1;
":(" looks quite sad. I also assume you know that : is a division. In a
more complex situation this might, on first sight, be mistaken as a
division by $x or such.
Mind that a line of code typically is read way more often than
On 04/08/2011 21:42, Jérémy Poulain wrote:
Hi every one,
This message is also my first one. I've been following internals for few
weeks now.
I really don't think adding more short syntax would be a good idea, at least
this one.
PHP is a very popular language for many reasons, it's C-like, easy
Hi every one,
This message is also my first one. I've been following internals for few
weeks now.
I really don't think adding more short syntax would be a good idea, at least
this one.
PHP is a very popular language for many reasons, it's C-like, easy readable.
We all had to read some code made
In terms of thinking about typos, I'm sure there would be a solution to
making pretty robust short hand lambdas.
I think a more valid discussion would be whether PHP should have a short
hand lamda notation. A lot of talk on here is against there even being a
short-hand version, whatever syntax
Just two examples, why I think, this is a not a good idea. Simple typos
can produce hard to track errors. Its just confusing
$x = 4;
$y = ($x);{
return $x*2;
}
// and
$x = 4;
$x = ($x)
{
$y = $x*2;
}
On 04.08.2011 21:52, Jezz Goodwin wrote:
Hello PHP Internals,
This is my first m
On 04/08/2011 21:00, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
On 2011-08-04, Jezz Goodwin wrote:
--060805070009050707030403
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello PHP Internals,
This is my first message to the list. I've been readin
On 2011-08-04, Jezz Goodwin wrote:
> --060805070009050707030403
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Hello PHP Internals,
>
> This is my first message to the list. I've been reading via the archive
> since I read the 5.4RC
Hello PHP Internals,
This is my first message to the list. I've been reading via the archive
since I read the 5.4RC1 announcement. (Keep up the great work guys - I'm
loving the new stuff)
Up until now I haven't had anything to say that wasn't already being
talked about, but the topic of shor
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:54 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Gwynne Raskind wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:12, Antony Dovgal wrote:
>> >>> Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda
>> >>> hieroglyphic?
>> >> No. I don't see at all why we need
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Gwynne Raskind wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:12, Antony Dovgal wrote:
> >>> Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda
> >>> hieroglyphic?
> >> No. I don't see at all why we need this, just like I don't see why we
> >> needed an alternativ
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:12, Antony Dovgal wrote:
>>> Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda
>>> hieroglyphic?
>> No. I don't see at all why we need this, just like I don't see why we
>> needed an alternative (short) syntax for arrays. This kind of syntax
>> additions tha
Hi, Scott. I wrote you on scott...@php.net.
This patch - my first work on C language. I write it becouse people
advised me write patch for fast feature adding.
I also tried add minimal changes.
If you spend a little time to check and fix my patch, I would be very
thankful to you.
With regards, Ale
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Sokolov Evgeniy wrote:
> Hi All.
>
> I can't find RSS channel or maillist for https://bugs.php.net. If it exists?
>
the general mailing list for bugs is php-b...@lists.php.net
the rss feed for it is http://news.php.net/group.php?group=php.bugs&format=rss
some bug
Yeah it does need cleaning up, didn't know about the new mail options,
main reason I did it was because the function has had the option since
2004, but it's never actually used it
On Thursday, August 4, 2011, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> few comments just from reading the patch, not the ful
Hi All.
I can't find RSS channel or maillist for https://bugs.php.net. If it exists?
This seems to be a build, not an code issue. So this should be fixed by
a build independently from RC or final.
Pierre can confirm.
johannes
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 09:36 -0700, James Yu wrote:
> I found there's critical bug fixed after RC4
>
> https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=55356
>
> SSL didn
Am 04.08.2011 18:35, schrieb Stas Malyshev:
No, it's not even remotely like that. Using one intermediary function
and doing the DB call is orders of magnitude apart. You asked how you
can solve the problem, I showed you how. You can claim you don't like
the solution, that's fine, everybody has hi
Never got the email, will look today at it. Doesn't quite match our coding
standards from the first glance.
S
On 4 Aug 2011, at 09:17, Александ Москалёв wrote:
> I write to omar (ext author) and scottmac (bug owner) and not received
> a reply from they.
>
> Can someone else check this patch, p
Hi,
few comments just from reading the patch, not the full context, not
testing it:
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 16:30 +0100, Keloran wrote:
> Index: ext/imap/php_imap.c
> ===
> --- ext/imap/php_imap.c (revision 314217)
> +++ ext/imap/php_i
Hi!
On 8/4/11 5:34 AM, Lars Schultz wrote:
Do not keep object references, keep object IDs. This would make your
code a bit more verbose and a bit slower, but weak refs would
essentially do the same anyway.
This is like saying: do not use objects at all and use the DB for
storage. verbosity and
I found there's critical bug fixed after RC4
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=55356
SSL didn't work properly in RC4.
Thanks,
James
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Unless something changes, I think we are going to go from RC4 to final
> release.
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 201
cool, thanks
that patch is for 5.4 (since the line nums changed from 5.3-5.4,
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> I have now attached the patch to the issue:
> https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=30688
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Keloran wrote:
> > patch attached
> >
> > O
I have now attached the patch to the issue:
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=30688
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Keloran wrote:
> patch attached
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> Can you attach this patch to the bug please?
>>
>> Thanks for your work!
>>
>>
I write to omar (ext author) and scottmac (bug owner) and not received
a reply from they.
Can someone else check this patch, please?
With regards, Alexander Moskaliov
ir...@irker.net
2011/7/25 Александр Москалёв :
> Hello. Can someone check my patch in this
> request https://bugs.php.net/bug.p
patch attached
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi,
>
> Can you attach this patch to the bug please?
>
> Thanks for your work!
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Keloran wrote:
> > Index: ext/imap/php_imap.c
> > ==
From your blog post:
> All in all, I have tried to eliminate the syntax noise by
> reducing the key strokes in the the non-significant parts
> of the expression is typing time really the bottleneck for
> productivity
Is typing really the bottleneck for developers these days? I must suck
then. I
hi,
Can you attach this patch to the bug please?
Thanks for your work!
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Keloran wrote:
> Index: ext/imap/php_imap.c
> ===
> --- ext/imap/php_imap.c (revision 314217)
> +++ ext/imap/php_imap.c (working
Index: ext/imap/php_imap.c
===
--- ext/imap/php_imap.c (revision 314217)
+++ ext/imap/php_imap.c (working copy)
@@ -4016,7 +4016,27 @@
if (!INI_STR("sendmail_path")) {
return 0;
}
- sendmail = pope
Unless something changes, I think we are going to go from RC4 to final release.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:29 PM, James Yu wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Develo
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 12:36 +0100, Lester Caine wrote:
> Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> > so to address your question: if you unset your variables you can
> > reclaim memory, but there could be edge cases, when you will memory
> > leak before version 5.3.
>
> So it looks like I'm not hitting any edge case
On 08/04/2011 05:04 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Victor Bolshov wrote:
Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda hieroglyphic?
No. I don't see at all why we need this, just like I don't see why we
needed an alternative (short) syntax for arrays. This kin
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Victor Bolshov wrote:
> Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda hieroglyphic?
No. I don't see at all why we need this, just like I don't see why we
needed an alternative (short) syntax for arrays. This kind of syntax
additions that add *no* functionali
+1 - think everybody'd want their functions to be searchable and searching
for complex patterns like "(function)|(\|\=\>)" would really be a headache.
Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda hieroglyphic?
2011/8/4 Antony Dovgal
> On 08/04/2011 04:39 PM, Lazare Inepologlou
On 08/04/2011 04:39 PM, Lazare Inepologlou wrote:
... ( $x ) => $x + 1 for example would be ambiguous if used in an array
definition, but is otherwise the best in terms of readability.
... people wanted an easy way to grep for function declarations
A new and unique operator (like the |=
> ... ( $x ) => $x + 1 for example would be ambiguous if used in an array
> definition, but is otherwise the best in terms of readability.
> ... people wanted an easy way to grep for function declarations
A new and unique operator (like the |=> I have proposed) is a solution
that works because:
Am 04.08.2011 09:17, schrieb Stas Malyshev:
I'm sorry but you putting forth contradictory requirements here - you
want to keep the objects (to avoid "expensively reconstructing" them)
and you don't want to keep them (memory problems). You'll have to give
up one of these requirements. As I see, yo
Oh, and I forgot one more thing:
As I read the internals, I noticed many times that PHP lexer is
somewhat limited in it's capabilities and sometimes the features are
dropped because of this issue.
It can be the case that the can be ambiguous and it will be just
impossible to add at this stage.
As
2011/8/4 Lazare Inepologlou :
> Hello everyone.
>
> I am new to the php-internals list. I have joined because I have
> implemented a feature that I would like to be included in the php
> language: a shorter syntax for lambdas. I am going to briefly present
> it here. Apologies for the long (and yet
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 21:18 +1000, Ryan McCue wrote:
> Lazare Inepologlou wrote:
> > Thank you for your interest. This is just a proposal that I have tested and
> > works. Of course, the final syntax can be different. Syntax is always a
> > matter of taste :-)
>
> As much as I love the idea, I hav
Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
so to address your question: if you unset your variables you can
reclaim memory, but there could be edge cases, when you will memory
leak before version 5.3.
So it looks like I'm not hitting any edge cases in the earlier code as some
sites have been running for years witho
Lazare Inepologlou wrote:
> Thank you for your interest. This is just a proposal that I have tested and
> works. Of course, the final syntax can be different. Syntax is always a
> matter of taste :-)
As much as I love the idea, I have to agree that using | doesn't really
make sense here and actual
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 17:29 -0700, James Yu wrote:
> Thanks!
Why do you need a 5th RC? Anything of importance changed? You want to
get a patch in? Ilia, who thankfully took over this release, wrote in a
mail about RC4:
Given the small number of changes since the last RC, it is
lik
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> I'm still trying to get my head around this 'Weak Reference' thing, but
> since I'm still working to be compatible with PHP5.2 then I've not taken
> much notice of this 'garbage collection' stuff. So this may be where I am
> missing something?
I'm still trying to get my head around this 'Weak Reference' thing, but since
I'm still working to be compatible with PHP5.2 then I've not taken much notice
of this 'garbage collection' stuff. So this may be where I am missing something?
I manage what material I need using a list of numbers, and
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Stas Malyshev wrote:
>>>
>>> I am open to any suggestions how I could solve my problem without
>>> WeakReference or zval-refcount (short of keeping a ref-count in
>>> userland).
>>
>> Do not keep object references, keep object IDs. This would
Hi all :-),
On 04/08/11 09:23, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 08/04/2011 12:08 AM, Lazare Inepologlou wrote:
$add = | $x |=> | $y : $x |=> $x+$y;
This does not seem to match the syntax of any language I know of so
people are going to have a hard time figuring out what this does. It's
not even clea
Hello,
>> $add = | $x |=> | $y : $x |=> $x+$y;
> Not sure that it's really readable.
This is not the most trivial example. In my blog, there is a small
sub-section where I explain why this is more readable than an implementation
with the current syntax. See under "Readability" and "A more complic
Good morning Rasmus,
Thank you for your interest. This is just a proposal that I have tested and
works. Of course, the final syntax can be different. Syntax is always a
matter of taste :-)
> it is only useful in one limited type of trivial closure usage
This trivial usage is actually the most c
Hello !
I've always thought that just supressing the "function" keyword could work
as a shorthand, i.e. having ([param1 [, param2 [, ...]]]){...}. Somewhat
similar to Ruby's lambda shorthand:
http://slideshow.rubyforge.org/ruby19.html#40
Huge +1 for that.
Code using closures will be more read
Hello !
It's a test.
Sorry for noise.
Best regards,
Fred
--
Frédéric Hardy : Architecte d'application/Admin. système/Ergonome
CV : http://blog.mageekbox.net/public/cv.frederic.hardy.pdf
Blog : http://bl
Stas Malyshev wrote:
I am open to any suggestions how I could solve my problem without
WeakReference or zval-refcount (short of keeping a ref-count in
userland).
Do not keep object references, keep object IDs. This would make your
code a bit more verbose and a bit slower, but weak refs would
es
Hi!
On 8/4/11 12:31 AM, dukeofgaming wrote:
I've always thought that just supressing the "function" keyword could work
as a shorthand, i.e. having ([param1 [, param2 [, ...]]]){...}. Somewhat
similar to Ruby's lambda shorthand:
http://slideshow.rubyforge.org/ruby19.html#40
My opinion is that w
Hi,
I've always thought that just supressing the "function" keyword could work
as a shorthand, i.e. having ([param1 [, param2 [, ...]]]){...}. Somewhat
similar to Ruby's lambda shorthand:
http://slideshow.rubyforge.org/ruby19.html#40
Regards,
David
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf
On 08/04/2011 12:08 AM, Lazare Inepologlou wrote:
> $add = | $x |=> | $y : $x |=> $x+$y;
This does not seem to match the syntax of any language I know of so
people are going to have a hard time figuring out what this does. It's
not even clear that |=> is a new operator there due to the dangling |,
Hi!
On 8/3/11 11:03 PM, Lars Schultz wrote:
(from the cache). This works very well and keeps me from expensively
reconstructing objects from the DB. What it does not work well with is
Garbage collection, since the an object will always be referenced at
least once (by the cache). The longer a scr
Hello everyone.
I am new to the php-internals list. I have joined because I have
implemented a feature that I would like to be included in the php
language: a shorter syntax for lambdas. I am going to briefly present
it here. Apologies for the long (and yet incomplete) e-mail. I am
ready to write
67 matches
Mail list logo
