On 11/13/2011 10:08 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> 2011/11/13 Antoine Delignat-Lavaud :
>> So this means being able to use $string->strlen() (or even $string->len())
>> instead of strlen($string) or $array->in_array($x) ($array->in($x)) instead
>> of in_array($x,$array), right?
>
> Yes, that's the idea,
On 13.11.11 19:08, Pierre Joye wrote:
> 2011/11/13 Antoine Delignat-Lavaud :
>> On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 14:23 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>>
>>> There is an idea to have pseudo object for common types, where these
>>> functions would be callable without actually having an instance. No
>>> implementati
On 11/13/11 7:11 AM, Laruence wrote:
Hi:
this revisioin remove the ob_* functions:
http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=299980
Indeed, I do not see ob_gzhandler in the function list, but no mention
of that in UPGRADING or other docs. As far as I understand, it was
converted from
2011/11/13 Antoine Delignat-Lavaud :
> On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 03:10 +0100, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
please use two replies next time :)
> On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 14:23 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> There is an idea to have pseudo object for common types, where these
>> functions would be callable
Hi:
string(10) "readgzfile"
[1]=>
string(8) "gzrewind"
[2]=>
string(7) "gzclose"
[3]=>
string(5) "gzeof"
[4]=>
string(6) "gzgetc"
[5]=>
string(6) "gzgets"
[6]=>
string(7) "gzgetss"
[7]=>
string(6) "gzread"
[8]=>
string(6) "gzopen"
[9]=>
string(10) "gzpassthru"
Hi:
my mistake in the word usage, I mean ob_gzhandler missd,,
not ob_*,,
sorry
thanks
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.11.2011 16:11, schrieb Laruence:
>> Hi:
>>
>> this revisioin remove the ob_* functions:
>> http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&re
Am 13.11.2011 16:47, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
> as you can see, there is 2 functions gone in 5.4/trunk:
> string(12) "ob_gzhandler"
> string(16) "ob_iconv_handler"
thank your for confirming that
i only liked to get sure what happens early enough
the two missing are not soo bad but AFAIK a
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.11.2011 16:11, schrieb Laruence:
> > Hi:
> >
> > this revisioin remove the ob_* functions:
> > http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=299980
> >
> > is this intentional? if yes, I think this will become a doc problem
>
>
All the ob_* tests are still in 5.4 and they all pass, so no, these
functions have not been removed.
On 11/13/2011 07:26 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.11.2011 16:11, schrieb Laruence:
>> Hi:
>>
>> this revisioin remove the ob_* functions:
>> http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revis
Am 13.11.2011 16:11, schrieb Laruence:
> Hi:
>
> this revisioin remove the ob_* functions:
> http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=299980
>
> is this intentional? if yes, I think this will become a doc problem
i think / hope this is an accident
if the ob_functions(9 are replaced i
Hi:
this revisioin remove the ob_* functions:
http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=299980
is this intentional? if yes, I think this will become a doc problem.
thanks
--
Laruence Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsub
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 03:10 +0100, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
Your using is_equal_function, this does a == comparison. People will
stumble over $a = 0; $a in ["a", "b", "c", "it's easy as one two
three"]; which will be true. This is the consistent and correct
behaviour for the language but people w
2011/11/13 Johannes Schlüter :
> On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 03:10 +0100, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>> For 5.5 I also have doubts whether it's worth the additional keyword and
>> opcode. Yes it will, most likely, but this is an extension to the
>> grammar ...
>
> I meanwhile did a quick check on google co
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 20:40:53 +0100, Rasmus Lerdorf
wrote:
Hey Gustavo, you added a simple http server and some tests a year ago. I
think we have some bitrot on them as they are all failing for me and
also on gcov:
http://gcov.php.net/viewer.php?version=PHP_5_4&func=tests&file=ext%2Fstandard%
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 03:10 +0100, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> For 5.5 I also have doubts whether it's worth the additional keyword and
> opcode. Yes it will, most likely, but this is an extension to the
> grammar ...
I meanwhile did a quick check on google codesearch. I found a few cases
where "in
15 matches
Mail list logo