Marc Richards wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 18:50 15/08/2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> (*) Based on the fact php-general@ has 787 subscribers and current
> estimates at the amount of PHP developers worldwide range between
> 500,000 to 2,000,000 developers. I
Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 18:50 15/08/2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> (*) Based on the fact php-general@ has 787 subscribers and current
> estimates at the amount of PHP developers worldwide range between
> 500,000 to 2,000,000 developers. I actually got the opening number
> w
George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Aug 15, 2005, at 2:29 AM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Aug 14, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
If apc comes bundled then it includes apc_store() and apc_fetch
Marc Richards wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Jani Taskinen wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
If apc comes bundled then it includes apc_store() and apc_fetch() this
is pretty much $_MEMORY with a few tweaks.
Yes, but that is restricted to one server installations
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Jani Taskinen wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
If apc comes bundled then it includes apc_store() and apc_fetch() this
is pretty much $_MEMORY with a few tweaks.
Yes, but that is restricted to one server installations.
I need such a 'global se
, 2005-02-09 at 21:14, Marc Richards wrote:
George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Feb 9, 2005, at 7:45 PM, Marc Richards wrote:
Wez Furlong wrote:
You may have noticed my "drive-by release" of various different PDO
packages tonight/this morning.
This is stage one of the "PDO push".
Are
George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Feb 9, 2005, at 7:45 PM, Marc Richards wrote:
Wez Furlong wrote:
You may have noticed my "drive-by release" of various different PDO
packages tonight/this morning.
This is stage one of the "PDO push".
Are there plans for a mysqli driver for PDO? I
Wez Furlong wrote:
You may have noticed my "drive-by release" of various different PDO
packages tonight/this morning.
This is stage one of the "PDO push".
Are there plans for a mysqli driver for PDO? I searched around but I
couldn't seem to find an answer.
Is it a technical limitation or simply a
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Comments/Flames/Praises to this list :)
All praise PHP 5.1. All praise PDO.
Marc
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Mike Robinson wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Hans Zaunere wrote:
That presents somewhat of a chicken-and-egg problem.
Production sites won't be compelled to make a move until PHP
recommends it in some way, or if there is a killer feature
that pulls people in, regardless of the perceived stability.
Wez Furlong wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
True. Discussions about whether or not to use a templating system or
using comments for readability is off topic.
However I am trying to find out if there is a technical reason for not
including the alternative syntax for this control structure or any other
Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, John Coggeshall wrote:
Not to bust everyone's bubble here, but frankly what is the point of a
90-100+ thread on this? I mean can't this just be implemented as a PHP
function without all this discussion?
Maybe we should name the function bike
Red Wingate wrote:
Marc Richards wrote:
I guess this is too late for 5.0, and I feel like there is bound to be
opposition, but this has been bugging me for a while, so I figured I
would ask.
I use the alternative syntax for control structures almost exclusively
within my HTML code but I have to
Thomas Seifert wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:53:51 -0400, Marc Richards wrote:
This looks like a good case to use a real template-engine.
Huh? Why would you use a template engine if the features you are
looking for already exist in the language. You think I should use a
I guess this is too late for 5.0, and I feel like there is bound to be
opposition, but this has been bugging me for a while, so I figured I
would ask.
I use the alternative syntax for control structures almost exclusively
within my HTML code but I have to revert to braces for do...while. Why
c
Marc Richards wrote:
I also think that what Rasmus suggeted is a good idea:
"So, perhaps introduce the value() function which doesn't do any type
casting and enhance the intval(), strval() and floatval() functions to
act like value() but cast appropriately unless the default arg is
Jason Garber wrote:
MR> $level = value($_POST['level'], NULL, INT);
MR> switch($level){ MR> case 0: MR> echo "Welcome to level 0";
MR> break; MR> case 1: MR> echo "Welcome to level 1"; MR>
break; MR> case 2: MR> echo "Welcome to level 2"; MR> break;
MR> default: MR> echo "
Jason Garber wrote:
Sunday, July 11, 2004, 10:48:06 PM, you wrote:
RL> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Jason Garber wrote:
The concept is desirable, but can be achieved if you need it just as
simply using already available syntax (ie a cast):
$level = (integer) value($_SESSION['level'], 1);
RL> The problem
Marc Richards wrote:
I don't think a function named param() really fits, but I do like the
idea of adding a type check (or in the case of PHP a type cast) to the
function.
$level = (int) (isset($_SESSION['level']) ? $_SESSION['level'] :
(isset($_REQUEST['lev
Sean Coates wrote:
Not meaning to add more confusion, but Coldfusion (yes yes, please keep
laughter to a minimum) has had a similar function since the beginning
(IIRC).
it's
http://livedocs.macromedia.com/coldfusion/6.1/htmldocs/tags-b13.htm
Perhaps a php function "param(...)" ? Even though it'
Ilya Sher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
firstset() is most logical name (at least for me)
|
The problem with firstset() is that it doesn't make as much sense if we
are only testing one variable...but that is still to be determined.
Marc
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Devel
ke a decision what the best way to go is and
then we can discuss implementation if/what is possible". They will both
probably not have time to look at this until after 5.0 is out.
My current preference is
"getval" "(" ( "," )* ")"
Marc
Marc Ric
Marcus, or anyone else familiar enough with the engine,
Just to clarify, do you see an inherent technical problem with nesting
ifsetor() function calls?
$user = ifsetor($_SESSION['user'], ifsetor($_POST['user'], NULL));
or is the problem only with accepting a list of parameters:
$user = ifsetor($
Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Marc Richards wrote:
Compound Ternary operator:
$a = $b ?: $c;
You realize that ternary means it takes three arguments? It has
nothing to do with question marks and colons. Your new "compound
ternary" operator is really a "b
Jason Garber wrote:
The original reason that I asked for this functionality was to make it
significantly easier to work with E_ALL error reporting. When I say
easier, I mean by reducing duplicate code.
//This
$foo = (integer) ifsetor($_POST['foo'], 0);
//Instead of
$foo = (integer) (isset($_PO
Olivier Hill wrote:
Marc Richards wrote:
What? Why? There is obviously a way around it, because that is what
people are using now.
$a = $b ? $b : $c;
If $b is not set, it will throw notices.
The correct way is something similar to:
$a = (!isset($b) && !isnull($b)) ? $b : $c
Right.
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Marc Richards wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Marc Richards wrote:
Does it? There are other similar constructs that don't e.g. +=, $a ? $b
: $c, .=;
These have roots in other languages and as such have a familiarity to
Marcus Boerger wrote:
it would allow two versions by having the default optional:
1) $a = ifsetor($b)
2) $a = ifsetor($b, NULL)
$a = $b ?: NULL;
How would the operator do the second? Will it look like the
following?
$a = $b ?:;
I defitively don't want that.
Me either. What I am saying is that
Olivier Hill wrote:
Marc Richards wrote:
That is true for other things as well:
$a = $b += $c += $d;
$a = $b + $c = $d;
Well.. yes and no...
If you are afraid of making mistake, you can force yourself to never use
+= -= *= operators, because you can simply write $a = $a + $b
But if PHP
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Marc Richards wrote:
Does it? There are other similar constructs that don't e.g. +=, $a ? $b
: $c, .=;
These have roots in other languages and as such have a familiarity to
them. ?: would be a brand new operator nobody has seen before and one
Marcus Boerger wrote:
?: would require a default value. ifsetor() allows to assume NULL hence
the latter is more powerfull. Hence id like to see a new keyword.
Well am not sure what you mean by more powerful, but the character count
is about the same:
$a = ifsetor($b);
$a = $b ?: NULL;
And the se
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Marc Richards wrote:
Christian Schneider wrote:
Before it gets forgotten: I still think that
$x = ifsetor(mixed var, mixed var [, ...]);
with expressions in all parts is the way to go.
Example usage:
$a = ifsetor($_REQUEST['x'], $db->get(&#x
Christian Schneider wrote:
Before it gets forgotten: I still think that
$x = ifsetor(mixed var, mixed var [, ...]);
with expressions in all parts is the way to go.
Example usage:
$a = ifsetor($_REQUEST['x'], $db->get('x'), 'default_x');
The other syntax could work for that as well...
$a = $_REQUEST
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Marc,
it somply was far too lat3e in relase process. That's wy we ae all agreed
to delay that until 5.1. Also we were very unsure about the name of such
an operatorif you can collect all the ideas or can come up with ther
perfect one!?!
Well I'm partial to ?: and th
Jason Garber wrote:
Hi Marc,
What we basically settled on was to use this syntax (as a new language
construct):
$x = ifsetor(mixed variable, mixed default);
So ?: is out then? Or just delayed until it can be tackled.
If I recall correctly, Marcus had a patch that implemented it and it was
goi
On 4/15/2004 Jason Garber asked about a new language construct to
simplify testing if a variable isset() and assinging a default value for
those that aren't. The thread title was "Construct Request".
I rember reading it while the discussion went on, I just went back and
browsed through it agai
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
[snip]
The problem here is not as simple as people like to make it sound. Time
and time again I see the /. mentality where people berate PHP developers
for being stupid and stubborn for not just "fixing PHP" so it is stable
and robust with Apache2.
I have explained this a num
George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Apr 18, 2004, at 2:24 PM, Marc Richards wrote:
Do the pages that get included by the __autoload() function get parsed
and compiled along with the original page when using a code cache?
No, but since all the code caches cache each include file independently,
it
Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 01:06 PM 4/18/2004 -0400, Marc Richards wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 12:57 PM 4/18/2004 -0400, Marc Richards wrote:
Does anyone know when __autoload() gets invoked? Is it during code
compilation or at runtime? Has anyone tested __autoload() with a
code cache like APC
Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 12:57 PM 4/18/2004 -0400, Marc Richards wrote:
Does anyone know when __autoload() gets invoked? Is it during code
compilation or at runtime? Has anyone tested __autoload() with a code
cache like APC or ZPS?
Marc
>
> It gets called at run-time and should work wit
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Along those lines, is there any performance penalty for using
__autoload() to load my php classes if I am using a code cache like APC?
Ask george
Does anyone know when __autoload() gets invoked? Is it during code
compilation or at runtime? Has anyone tested __autoload()
Hi All,
I have a couple question re: {subject}.
Can anybody point me to some info on why this change was neccessary (not
complaining, just curious). I did some searching and it seems to relate
to objects that use interfaces...but that is all I could find. If it is
too complex to explain that
I know that Apache 2 discussions have come up before, so I will make my
question very specific. Given that pre-fork is the default Apache mpm on
linux systems, why doesn't PHP have non-experimental support for Apache 2
when using this module?
I realize that there are thread-saftey issues when usi
I apologies if this is the wrong place for asking. Is non-experimental
Apache2 support planned for PHP 5?
Marc
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
44 matches
Mail list logo
