Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Fix for bug #55754

On 09/23/2011 03:41 PM, Daniel K. wrote: > On 09/23/2011 02:28 PM, Etienne Kneuss wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 14:06, Daniel K. wrote: >>> When a built-in function is defined with ZEND_SEND_PREFER_REF, PHP will >>> issue a strict warning if you use an assignment expression as the parameter. >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 11:33 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: On 09/23/2011 08:20 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: On 09/23/2011 11:17 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: On 09/23/2011 07:13 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: On 09/23/2011 09:15 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: I could also see this being an interestin

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 08:20 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: > > > On 09/23/2011 11:17 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >> On 09/23/2011 07:13 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 09/23/2011 09:15 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: >>> I could also see this being an interesting peer-pressure move -- "Fi

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 08:20 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: > > > On 09/23/2011 11:17 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >> On 09/23/2011 07:13 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 09/23/2011 09:15 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: >>> I could also see this being an interesting peer-pressure move -- "Fi

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 11:17 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: On 09/23/2011 07:13 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: On 09/23/2011 09:15 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: I could also see this being an interesting peer-pressure move -- "First to test!", "We tested last week; how come _you_ haven't?", etc. Sp

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 07:13 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: > > > On 09/23/2011 09:15 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > >> I could also see this being an interesting peer-pressure move -- "First >> to test!", "We tested last week; how come _you_ haven't?", etc. > > Speaking of testing, the commit > htt

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 09:15 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: I could also see this being an interesting peer-pressure move -- "First to test!", "We tested last week; how come _you_ haven't?", etc. Speaking of testing, the commit http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=317183 doesn't have

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 12:15 -0400, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > On 2011-09-23, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > On 09/23/2011 12:13 PM, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: > > > 2011/9/23 Rasmus Lerdorf > > > > 2. Maybe we should think bigger and put more focus on having large PHP > > > > frameworks and apps t

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 23.09.11 18:15, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > That said, I think it would be good to have a notification system > whereby framework leads are all pinged on new betas and RCs, and a wiki Something could probably monitor http://svn.php.net/repository/php/php-src/tags/ for changes and alert peo

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 2011-09-23, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > On 09/23/2011 12:13 PM, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: > > 2011/9/23 Rasmus Lerdorf > > > 2. Maybe we should think bigger and put more focus on having large PHP > > > frameworks and apps test every RC. Currently we notify them of RCs > > > and just hope someone

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

> Funny you mention that.  I wrote an extensive email to the PEAR QA team > a month ago (http://news.php.net/php.pear.qa/5890) proposing I clean up > the PEAR CI code and that they contact PHP QA to get it running on > gcov.php.net.  Alas, the people on PEAR QA team seem preoccupied with > life, so

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

Hi Rasmus: On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:06:28PM +0200, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > Ok, executive decision made. Patch committed. Thanks. > 1. Should we work up a basic PEAR test case that we can add to our >tests? Funny you mention that. I wrote an extensive email to the PEAR QA team a month

Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Fix for bug #55754

Hi, Ran into this exact issue just the other day. In the pre-5.4 days, to get the first element of a returned array I would use current(). I still think that's correct and shouldn't raise a digital eyebrow. On Sep 23, 2011 8:30 PM, "Etienne Kneuss" wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 14:06,

Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Fix for bug #55754

On 09/23/2011 02:28 PM, Etienne Kneuss wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 14:06, Daniel K. wrote: >> When a built-in function is defined with ZEND_SEND_PREFER_REF, PHP will >> issue a strict warning if you use an assignment expression as the parameter. > > The patch looks strange to me, why would y

Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Fix for bug #55754

Hi, On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 14:06, Daniel K. wrote: > When a built-in function is defined with ZEND_SEND_PREFER_REF, PHP will > issue a strict warning if you use an assignment expression as the parameter. > > As an example, current() show this behaviour. > > current() has this arginfo defined: >

[PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Fix for bug #55754

When a built-in function is defined with ZEND_SEND_PREFER_REF, PHP will issue a strict warning if you use an assignment expression as the parameter. As an example, current() show this behaviour. current() has this arginfo defined: ZEND_BEGIN_ARG_INFO(arginfo_current, ZEND_SEND_PREFER_REF) ZE

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

2011/9/23 Rasmus Lerdorf : > On 09/23/2011 12:13 PM, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: >> 2011/9/23 Rasmus Lerdorf >>> 2. Maybe we should think bigger and put more focus on having large PHP >>>   frameworks and apps test every RC. Currently we notify them of RCs >>>   and just hope someone will test and repo

[PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Test-case for bug #55754

The following is a test-case for bug #55754 The patch is on top of php-5.3.8. Daniel K. diff --git a/tests/lang/bug55754.phpt b/tests/lang/bug55754.phpt new file mode 100644 index 000..179d475 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/lang/bug55754.phpt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +--TEST-- +Bug #55754 (Only variable

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > On 09/23/2011 12:17 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > >> We do 2) already (while we are working on increasing the amount of >> apps and frameworks being tested), as I was asking to revert this >> patch between 5.3.7 and 5.3.8 back then pointing to o

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 12:17 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > We do 2) already (while we are working on increasing the amount of > apps and frameworks being tested), as I was asking to revert this > patch between 5.3.7 and 5.3.8 back then pointing to our tests results > and numerous reports. The problem was not in

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 12:13 PM, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: > 2011/9/23 Rasmus Lerdorf >> 2. Maybe we should think bigger and put more focus on having large PHP >> frameworks and apps test every RC. Currently we notify them of RCs >> and just hope someone will test and report back, but that obviously >>

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

hi Rasmus, On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > 1. Should we work up a basic PEAR test case that we can add to our >   tests? > > 2. Maybe we should think bigger and put more focus on having large PHP >   frameworks and apps test every RC. Currently we notify them of RCs >  

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

2011/9/23 Rasmus Lerdorf : > On 09/23/2011 01:37 AM, Alan Knowles wrote: >> This patch adds an extra parameter 'allow_string' to is_a (default off) >> and is_subclass_of (default on) , >> >> https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug_id=55475&patch=Is_a_with_allow_string_argument_v3&revision=latest

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 01:37 AM, Alan Knowles wrote: > This patch adds an extra parameter 'allow_string' to is_a (default off) > and is_subclass_of (default on) , > > https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug_id=55475&patch=Is_a_with_allow_string_argument_v3&revision=latest >

Re: [PHP-DEV] __constructor parameter limitations.

Hi 2011/9/23 Ferenc Kovacs : > A little bit off-topic, but maybe we could also discuss/fix this: > https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=43200 > http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs/browse_thread/thread/3fc16ba601045551 I don't see the bug in that matter, because the interface defines the protot

Re: [PHP-DEV] __constructor parameter limitations.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > On 9/20/11 12:07 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> but it is not logical >> >> foo() in B can do anything with $a before or after parent::foo() >> and the caller does not need to know at any point that B >> has anything to do with the cl