Your commit reminded me that we should probably look into providing
access to the low-level monotonic clock.
eg. CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW described here:
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man2/clock_getres.2.html
There is a monotonic clock library here that should help with portability:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Andrew Faulds wrote:
> If you think 1.1 =/= 1.01 you're sure using some weird version numbers.
> Only 1.0.1 would be smaller.
>
> Has anyone seen these weird version ordering schemes in practise? On any
> major projects of note?
>
>
*raises his hand*
1.01 and 1.0.
using this particular version-numbering scheme, 1.01 is equal to 1.1 - I
don't think that's a bug, because the version-numbers in this
version-numbering scheme are integers, not decimals.
so I believe this is in fact as correct as it can be, since numbers like
"01" should not really be used in thi
> -Original Message-
> From: Nikita Popov [mailto:nikita@gmail.com]
> Sent: 20 July 2012 21:46
> To: Nikita Popov
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: Generators in PHP
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Nikita Popov
> wrote:
> > Hi internals!
> >
> > In the last few day
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 10:32 +1000, David Muir wrote:
> What about extending the array typehint include ArrayAccess, and extend
> the Traversable typehint to include arrays?
For that all (internal) consumers of Traversable have to work with
arrays. i.e. . This could be
in the scope of the internal
hi Gustavo,
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> Em Sat, 21 Jul 2012 13:13:23 +0200, Pierre Joye
> escreveu:
>
>
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay, well... the main pieces of feedback I'd give on it then is to not
>>> change the behavior of
Em Sat, 21 Jul 2012 13:13:23 +0200, Pierre Joye
escreveu:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
Okay, well... the main pieces of feedback I'd give on it then is to not
change the behavior of the '!' modifier. That's bad BC.
Fully agreed, if we can avoid the introduction o
Maybe it should have an optional extra parameter specifying comparison
"mode"? (I.e. version formatting)
On Jul 21, 2012 1:08 PM, "Ángel González" wrote:
> On 21/07/12 11:32, Pierre Joye wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > No, I mean version with 1.0 and not 1.0.0 are not. They are just not
> > correct and co
On 21/07/12 11:32, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi,
>
> No, I mean version with 1.0 and not 1.0.0 are not. They are just not
> correct and confusing, as you noticed.
Then Linux 2.6.39 shouldn't have been followed by Linux 3.0
For me, 1.0 and 1.0.0 are the same thing.
It's fine if x.y is not a valid "PHP-
Thank you Matthew. I had the feeling that my proposal was dismissed a bit
quickly by some people, while I think it's how object-oriented languages
should handle attributes' visibility.
I still think it's very simple and elegant, and more coherent in some
situations (those situations targeted by the
hi!
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> Okay, well... the main pieces of feedback I'd give on it then is to not
> change the behavior of the '!' modifier. That's bad BC.
Fully agreed, if we can avoid the introduction of yet another set of
#ifdef, then I'm all for it.
> Rat
If you think 1.1 =/= 1.01 you're sure using some weird version numbers.
Only 1.0.1 would be smaller.
Has anyone seen these weird version ordering schemes in practise? On any
major projects of note?
On Jul 21, 2012 10:51 AM, "Tjerk Meesters" wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Jul, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Kris Craig w
To follow that up, this is how version numbers are sorted:
1, 1.0, 1a, 1.0.1, 1.0.1a, 1.0.1.1, 2, 2.0.1
The first number is always most significant, followed by each number after
it (not necessarily single digits, ReactOS has 0.3.14 for instance), then
finally any letters at the end.
Equivalence
On 21 Jul, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>>1.01 eq 1.1
>
> Could you explain this one to me? In every versioning system I've ever
> used, 1.1 would be greater than 1.01, not equal.
Because 01 is just a padded version of 1, probably used to make it easier for
regular string compari
1, 1.0, 1.0.0, 1.0.0.0, 1.0.0.0.0 etc. are not confusing, they are
completely correct, and all mean the same thing.
If I publish MyApp v1, v1.0 and v1.0.0 are the same.
On Jul 21, 2012 10:32 AM, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
> hi,
>
> No, I mean version with 1.0 and not 1.0.0 are not. They are just not
>
hi,
No, I mean version with 1.0 and not 1.0.0 are not. They are just not
correct and confusing, as you noticed.
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Andrew Faulds wrote:
> What? x, x.y, x.y.z, x.y.z.a, etc are all valid.
> 1, 1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.2.3, in that order, would be valid.
>
> On Jul 21, 2012 1
What? x, x.y, x.y.z, x.y.z.a, etc are all valid.
1, 1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.2.3, in that order, would be valid.
On Jul 21, 2012 10:07 AM, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
> hi!
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Rasmus Schultz
> wrote:
>
> > Of course that would break backwards compatibility, which kind of defeat
hi!
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> Of course that would break backwards compatibility, which kind of defeats
> the purpose of having a standardized version-number comparison standard.
x.y.z is standard, x.y not. I keep asking package maintainers to use
x.y.z as version
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi Laruence,
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Laruence wrote:
>> Hi:
>> Call for voting for "Allow use T_AS in closure use statement",
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/useas#voting
>>
>> any comment will be appreciated.
>
> Well, that's
On 2012-07-21 12:19, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
So when I have a function that has a two- or multi-part result then -
instead of having one part as the return value and the others by
reference - in Python I'd return a tuple.
PHP functions can return arrays and some do - e.g. pathinfo(). But not
hi Laruence,
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Laruence wrote:
> Hi:
> Call for voting for "Allow use T_AS in closure use statement",
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/useas#voting
>
> any comment will be appreciated.
Well, that's why the discussions period is required.
Please close the vote, b
On 07/20/2012 05:16 PM, Rick Bird wrote:
> Hi,
> My name is Rick.. I done some light work on documentation side of things,
> but I had a question because I've been working a lot with the Symfony
> framework lately. Some in the Symfony irc room seem to be under the
> impression that short_open_ta
I also think
Logout
Log in | Register
With
Logout
Log in | Register
On Jul 21, 2012 8:03 AM, "Lester Caine" wrote:
> Rick Bird wrote:
>
>>My name is Rick.. I done some light work on documentation side of
>> things,
>> but I had a question because I've been working a lot with the Symfon
Yeah, that would definitely be a bug.
On Jul 21, 2012 7:23 AM, "Kris Craig" wrote:
> > 1.01 eq 1.1
>
> Could you explain this one to me? In every versioning system I've ever
> used, 1.1 would be greater than 1.01, not equal.
>
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Stas Malyshev >wrote:
> >
>
Rick Bird wrote:
My name is Rick.. I done some light work on documentation side of things,
but I had a question because I've been working a lot with the Symfony
framework lately. Some in the Symfony irc room seem to be under the
impression that short_open_tags is to be deprecated in php6. Is
25 matches
Mail list logo
