Hi,
On 4 February 2013 07:41, Martin Keckeis wrote:
> Hello,
>
> netcraft got new numbers. Maybe the outdated usage page could get updated?
> http://www.php.net/usage.php
>
> http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/01/31/php-just-grows-grows.html
>
I have been in touch with Netcraft about updatin
We still don't have a way to auto load non class entities. Other than that,
PSR-0 does solve the majority of autoload use cases.
Cheers,
David
Sent from my iPhone
On 04/02/2013, at 5:18 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 02/03/2013 08:51 PM, Matt Wilson wrote:
>> Hello all. I'd like to start by
Thomas Bley in php.internals (Mon, 4 Feb 2013 02:06:02 +0100):
>If I see it correctly, none of Debian, Ubuntu, openSUSE, CentOS,
>Fedora currently offer more than one version of PHP.
Directadmin does, I am using it on CentOS.
http://forum.directadmin.com/showthread.php?t=44743
Jan
--
PHP Intern
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/02/13 23:56, Florian Anderiasch wrote:
> On 03.02.2013 23:49, Thomas Bley wrote:
>> Using Debian/Ubuntu, I have "python2.6", "python2.7" and
>> "python3" packages, but only one version of "php5-fpm". Maybe it
>> would be better to have "php5.3-fp
On 02/03/2013 08:51 PM, Matt Wilson wrote:
Hello all. I'd like to start by saying that I am by no means an expert on the
subject at hand, and my knowledge is limited to pretty much basic C/C++. I have
done little more than patch and write ad hoc extensions for PHP in the past.
I'm not looking
> This is something of a wet dream of mine
TMI, my friend. TMI.
Anyway... I think your Subject is unnecessarily trolly even if the
substance of your post isn't. So maybe you could re-post with a "WAS:
Questioning..." to avoid p'ing off the dev team?
If I'm understanding your statement of "The a
Hello
Then again, your code still does not make sense to me ...
Fully understand :-)
Not want wasting your time with my specific situation... but there are
situation where it make sense :-)
For example... in my situation, i have time intensive (mathematically)
operations to do in pure p
Hello all. I'd like to start by saying that I am by no means an expert on the
subject at hand, and my knowledge is limited to pretty much basic C/C++. I have
done little more than patch and write ad hoc extensions for PHP in the past.
I'm not looking to criticize so much, as I'm just interested
Hi Terry and all
thank you very much for your response.
The only thing that confused me about what you say that the second *doesn't*
grow
Yes, about that i was [and am still :-)] also confused... why the 2nd one won't
grow *non-stop*
so I checked and it does -- just the same as the first.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Florian Anderiasch wrote:
> On 03.02.2013 23:49, Thomas Bley wrote:
>> Using Debian/Ubuntu, I have "python2.6", "python2.7" and "python3"
>> packages, but only one version of "php5-fpm".
>> Maybe it would be better to have "php5.3-fpm" and "php5.4-fpm", using
>> /e
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
> > We do not consider a change [...] a BC break
>
> Let me help: backwards compatibility means a host can upgrade a
> package without inducing a lot of support tickets.
>
> Best,
>
> Karoly Negyesi
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Develop
On 03.02.2013 23:49, Thomas Bley wrote:
> Using Debian/Ubuntu, I have "python2.6", "python2.7" and "python3"
> packages, but only one version of "php5-fpm".
> Maybe it would be better to have "php5.3-fpm" and "php5.4-fpm", using
> /etc/php5.3 and /etc/php5.4 ?
> Esp. for Travis-CI it would be much
On 02/03/2013 02:49 PM, Thomas Bley wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> So, if we are talking about PHP 6, then the opening >> accompanied by the version it was written for, it was tested with a
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> So, if we are talking about PHP 6, then the opening > accompanied by the version it was written for, it was tested with and then
>> the engine could switch to a compatibili
On 02/03/2013 02:39 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
>> array_diff_asccoc() comparing array(1,2,3) to "Array" and saying those
>> were equivalent without any sort of notice.
>
> That's not what happened, some contib was comparing array(1,2,3) to
> array(1,2,array(3)) and even looking at the documentation
> array_diff_asccoc() comparing array(1,2,3) to "Array" and saying those
> were equivalent without any sort of notice.
That's not what happened, some contib was comparing array(1,2,3) to
array(1,2,array(3)) and even looking at the documentation it is not
clear whether the cast should or should not
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013, Martin Jansen wrote:
> Back in December I submitted a pull request to make FILTER_VALIDATE_INT
> accept +0/-0. That request was merged into php-src:
>
> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/248
>
> The other day I then stumbled upon a note on
> http://www.php.net/manual/en/fil
On 02/03/2013 02:27 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
> Hm, there is a slight miscommunication which is my fault.
>
> I do not suggest a PHP engine being compatible with 5 and 6, gosh, no.
>
> I suggest a PHP engine compatible with 5.3 and 5.4. Is that a
> maintenance mess too? The difference should be a
Hm, there is a slight miscommunication which is my fault.
I do not suggest a PHP engine being compatible with 5 and 6, gosh, no.
I suggest a PHP engine compatible with 5.3 and 5.4. Is that a
maintenance mess too? The difference should be a lot, lot smaller.
And yes, interaction is a problem and
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So, if we are talking about PHP 6, then the opening accompanied by the version it was written for, it was tested with and then
> the engine could switch to a compatibility mode for that version.
>
> Seems to me that this would solv
On 02/03/2013 02:11 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
> If you mean from the mistakes and get a better implementation? I have some ideas,
> but first I'd be glad to learn why it was a mess.
The whole concept of maintaining multiple personalities in the same
codebase is a complete non-starter. The complex
> So, if we are talking about PHP 6, then the opening accompanied by the version it was written for, it was tested with and then
> the engine could switch to a compatibility mode for that version.
>
> Seems to me that this would solve the problem where a host can't upgrade to
> a more modern vers
If you mean wrote:
> On 02/03/2013 02:03 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
>> Well, fixing a segfault, adding a new function or method as it oft
>> happened in PHP 5.3 is only breaking forwards compatibility not
>> backwards -- if you have code that ran on PHP 5.3.4 it'll run on
>> 5.3.5. The reverse is n
On 02/03/2013 02:03 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
> Well, fixing a segfault, adding a new function or method as it oft
> happened in PHP 5.3 is only breaking forwards compatibility not
> backwards -- if you have code that ran on PHP 5.3.4 it'll run on
> 5.3.5. The reverse is not true which causes some
Well, fixing a segfault, adding a new function or method as it oft
happened in PHP 5.3 is only breaking forwards compatibility not
backwards -- if you have code that ran on PHP 5.3.4 it'll run on
5.3.5. The reverse is not true which causes some headaches to Drupal
developers but it's not relevant t
On 02/03/2013 01:48 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
>> We do not consider a change [...] a BC break
>
> Let me help: backwards compatibility means a host can upgrade a
> package without inducing a lot of support tickets.
Well, that is obviously not realistic. Every change we make has some
level of BC i
> We do not consider a change [...] a BC break
Let me help: backwards compatibility means a host can upgrade a
package without inducing a lot of support tickets.
Best,
Karoly Negyesi
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 02/03/2013 11:44 AM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
> > Well, either I misunderstood the policy or it's broken. Here are some
> > (note: please do not argue whether these are more correct than before,
> > they very well might be but they broke bac
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
> Well, either I misunderstood the policy or it's broken. Here are some
> (note: please do not argue whether these are more correct than before,
> they very well might be but they broke backwards compatibility):
>
> For example, in 5.4 array_d
On 02/03/2013 11:44 AM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
> Well, either I misunderstood the policy or it's broken. Here are some
> (note: please do not argue whether these are more correct than before,
> they very well might be but they broke backwards compatibility):
>
> For example, in 5.4 array_diff_assoc
Well, either I misunderstood the policy or it's broken. Here are some
(note: please do not argue whether these are more correct than before,
they very well might be but they broke backwards compatibility):
For example, in 5.4 array_diff_assoc began to throw a notice when
casting to string.
Again
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Martin Jansen wrote:
> Back in December I submitted a pull request to make FILTER_VALIDATE_INT
> accept +0/-0. That request was merged into php-src:
>
> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/248
>
> The other day I then stumbled upon a note on
> http://www.php.net/ma
2013/2/3 Sebastian Bergmann
> Am 03.02.2013 18:07, schrieb Sebastian Bergmann:
> > Can you explain why you are using eval() instead of a real anonymous
> > function? Thanks!
>
> Please ignore my email; I mixed up create_function() and eval(). Then
> again, your code still does not make sense to
Back in December I submitted a pull request to make FILTER_VALIDATE_INT
accept +0/-0. That request was merged into php-src:
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/248
The other day I then stumbled upon a note on
http://www.php.net/manual/en/filter.filters.validate.php saying "Numbers
+0 and -0 are n
Am 03.02.2013 18:07, schrieb Sebastian Bergmann:
> Can you explain why you are using eval() instead of a real anonymous
> function? Thanks!
Please ignore my email; I mixed up create_function() and eval(). Then
again, your code still does not make sense to me ...
--
Sebastian Bergmann
Am 03.02.2013 16:27, schrieb Hans-Juergen Petrich:
> Is there one who can explain this?
Can you explain why you are using eval() instead of a real anonymous
function? Thanks!
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal Consultant
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
On 03/02/13 16:27, Hans-Juergen Petrich wrote:
> The only different in the second example is the fixed body length of
> the eval()-created anoymous function.
> I wondering why the memory in the second code-example will be freed at
> some point while in the first example not.
>
> I don't think it's
Hi all
In this example (using php-5.4.11 on Linux) the memory will grow non-stop:
for ( $fp = fopen('/dev/urandom', 'rb'); true;) {
eval ('$ano_fnc = function() {$x = "'.bin2hex(fread($fp, mt_rand(1,
1))).'";};');
echo "Mem usage: ".memory_get_usage()."\n";
}
But in this example
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:30 PM, jenkins wrote:
> >
> >> this account will be used to keep the ci.qa.php.net jenkins
> >> installation\'s config file in sync with the web/jenkins
hi,
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:30 PM, jenkins wrote:
>
>> this account will be used to keep the ci.qa.php.net jenkins
>> installation\'s config file in sync with the web/jenkins git repo.
>>
>>
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:30 PM, jenkins wrote:
> this account will be used to keep the ci.qa.php.net jenkins
> installation\'s config file in sync with the web/jenkins git repo.
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
this account will be used to keep the ci.qa.php.net jenkins
installation\'s config file in sync with the web/jenkins git repo.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
hi,
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So, if we are talking about PHP 6, then the opening accompanied by the version it was written for, it was tested with and then
> the engine could switch to a compatibility mode for that version.
>
> Seems to me that this would
Hi,
So, if we are talking about PHP 6, then the opening
44 matches
Mail list logo
