Hello Ben,
there is no need in checking whether the implementation uses single
or double linked. Access to any structure from the engine will always
be slower by orders of magnitude, then maintaining a pinter structure
directly in C code. Now doing something with that in PHP code will
again be s
Hello Matt,
if there is no advantage in doing so, why offer a patch?
Ok, you probably meant disadvantage. And the advantge of doing so is
probably a lower memory foot print. Did you by any chance run any
profiling? Without numbers, I guess it is not worth the effort changing
a core component.
Hello Bas,
I would assume that we will see more people wanting this in the future.
So if you're willing to provide your code under PHP License, maintain it
in the foreseeable future and provide a clean version of it (as in free
from anything that is not really necessary), then you should show us
Hello Nate,
Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 9:25:23 PM, you wrote:
> Hi all,
> Since around alpha1, I've been doing some experimenting with closures,
> most recently in the form of a filter chain implementation, and I've
> discovered that as of beta1 (as was noted in the "removal-of-$this"
> RF
Hello Lukas,
Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 11:15:23 PM, you wrote:
> On 11.03.2009, at 19:55, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>> Last but not least, Lukas, what happened, to putting APC into core?
> That was planned for PHP 6.0.
there is no such thing. Let's either do it now or go fo
Hello Lukas,
Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 5:10:57 PM, you wrote:
> Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>> Hi Shire,
>>
>> I run patched APC on a number of real-life applications and got more
>> than 30% speedup on XOOPS (99 req/sec instead of 60%) and 20% on
>> ZendFramework (41 req/sec instead of 32), however m
Hello Johannes,
Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 12:29:12 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> last weekend at FOSDEM in Brussels Leslie Hawthorn announced this year's
> Google Summer of Code program. Meanwhile the FAQ including the timeline
> has been published.
> http://code.google.com/opensource/gsoc/2009/fa
Hello Frankie,
Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 5:19:32 PM, you wrote:
> I'm writing a PHP class with a method that has to be passed a
> DOMDocument object, and it needs to retain that object throughout the
> life of its instantiation. However, the (dom_object *) returned from
> zend_parse_method_para
Hello Lukas,
thanks for the detailed update on your life :-)
Friday, March 6, 2009, 9:13:16 AM, you wrote:
> Hello All,
> I am back from my vacation in Tanzania. I will be in Innsbruck over
> the weekend for some Frisbee action, but I hope to get back into the
> RM business Sunday evening
Hello Igor,
Monday, March 2, 2009, 5:31:51 PM, you wrote:
>> You can cut down on the skipped tests by building bz2, zlib, and openssl.
> 350 passed
> 161 skipped
> By the way, phar complained Archive.php wasn't found (no PEAR
> installed in this machine) in `make` time. Does it affects anything
Hello KaiGai,
Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 6:11:02 AM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm one of the developers in the SELinux.
> I have an extension of PHP to provide interfaces to communicate
> with SELinux, and would like to propose them to the official PHP.
> Now I'm looking for informations about steps
Hello Pierre,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 2:46:01 PM, you wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>> Hello Pierre,
>>
>> Thursday, February 19, 2009, 12:22:41 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>> hi,
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at
Hello Greg,
in one word: Awesome!
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 4:36:38 AM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> As PHP has the good fortune of being blessed with Scott MacVicar who
> connected me with the ppc64 test machine provided by IBM and the sparc
> machine provided by Sun through David Soria-Parra (than
Hello Matthew,
I gave a bunch of tutorials on this with various other folks, Johannes,
Sara, Wez. The slides from November 2007 are still up and contain probably
more information than you ever wanted to know. There is also the demo
extension that you can access through cvs.
http://talks.somab
Hello Pierre,
Thursday, February 19, 2009, 12:22:41 PM, you wrote:
> hi,
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>> ps. I'm aware of the fact that we added some specific APIs in special
>> cases in bug fix releases before, but there's a difference between
>> adding APIs an
Hello Nathan,
Wednesday, February 18, 2009, 3:31:56 PM, you wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>> But I don't think that a new limitation is any better: Tomorrow we have
>> to change it again as somebody has a reason to use 5 parameters, so if
>> it is changed it
Hello Greg,
Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 6:07:27 AM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> While tracking down a problem in one of phar's tests, I found what might
> be a problem in RecursiveDirectoryIterator's handling of flags. Here is
> a crude patch demonstrating the issue, and wondering if this is
> some
Hello Stanislav,
Friday, February 13, 2009, 7:03:30 AM, you wrote:
> Hi!
>> it should actually be a hard error. As we always claim PHP follows pure
>> IS-A relation ships.
> I feel very uneasy with hard errors on something that is not indeed an
> error preventing engine from continuing. I.e.
Hello shire,
Thursday, February 12, 2009, 8:02:06 PM, you wrote:
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>> The following remain open and it does not seem someone is actively
>> working in it:
>> - PHP_5_3 missed merge from PHP_5_2 for write_func callback
> Seeing as I have an interest in this getting in 5_
Hello Stanislav,
it should actually be a hard error. As we always claim PHP follows pure
IS-A relation ships.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 8:42:51 PM, you wrote:
> Hi!
>> http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=46984 - E_STRICT
> I think overriding foo($x) with foo($x, $y) - with both parameters
> req
Hello Johannes,
Thursday, February 5, 2009, 8:02:47 PM, you wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 10:36 -0800, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
>> Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>> > - No typehint, as it is now, #47206 "Expected / to be documented",
>> > incompatible with 5.2.6-5.2.8 but compatible with most other
Hello Stanislav,
Monday, January 19, 2009, 10:12:46 AM, you wrote:
> Hi!
>> Aren't we able to bind these at least partially to the function call
>> opcode, in case we know they are constant? If all is constsnt we could
>> even store the whole lookup in the opcode. Well you'd have to convince
>>
Hello Stanislav,
Monday, January 19, 2009, 9:32:09 AM, you wrote:
> Hi!
>> It is a mess right now. You assign a closure to another method and get
>> access to the original owners private members. That is not only unexpected
> Could you give a code example? I'm not sure I understand what you mea
Hello Christian,
Sunday, January 18, 2009, 11:58:29 PM, you wrote:
> Hi Marcus,
>>> "Convoluted"? "Mess"? Are you kidding me? It's standard usage of access
>>> handlers.
>>
>> It is a mess right now. You assign a closure to another method and get
>> access to the original owners private member
Hello Stanislav,
Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 5:29:02 PM, you wrote:
> Hi!
>> That is one example of convoluted code that is already possible. If a
>> developer creates such a mess is his fault.
> "Convoluted"? "Mess"? Are you kidding me? It's standard usage of access
> handlers.
It is a mes
Hello Timm,
Friday, January 16, 2009, 9:35:13 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> in every programming language, method calls are expensive. Especially in
> PHP, which does not spend any effort during compile time to resolve method
> calls their target (and cannot due to the possibility of lazily loading
Hello Stanislav,
Monday, January 12, 2009, 11:19:51 PM, you wrote:
> Hi!
>> it appears Dmitry and Stas are against that, so I let it for you to
>> decide whetehr you want me to drop all of it or continue workig on it
>> to make all I can ready for 5.3.0.
> I'm not precisely against it because
Hello Stanislav,
Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 12:07:31 AM, you wrote:
> Hi!
>> 1) a non static closure assigned to an instance changes the closures
>> this to be set to the actual object:
> I'm not sure why would you expect this. If you have closure that has
> some bound $var inside, and you use
Hello Internals,
our new closures can easily work as prototypes and I actually thought
of simply doing it as a bug fix. But it appeared that my first attempt
was inclomplete if not to say completely wrong. It further more turned
out that not everyone is a fan of the genral idea.
Basically what
Hello Lukas,
it appears Dmitry and Stas are against that, so I let it for you to
decide whetehr you want me to drop all of it or continue workig on it
to make all I can ready for 5.3.0.
marcus
Monday, January 12, 2009, 10:22:33 PM, you wrote:
> Hello Lukas,
> Monday, January 12, 2009, 11:56:
Hello Lukas,
Monday, January 12, 2009, 11:56:02 AM, you wrote:
> Hello all,
> Just wanted to get a status update on the work going on:
> - Eric and Nathan are working on new php.ini files and I guess they
> will soon post their proposals to the list
> - @Steph: have you begun work on the Upgra
Hello Stanislav,
Monday, January 5, 2009, 6:03:56 AM, you wrote:
> Hi!
>> some time back (August 08) I complained about 'use' being at a weird
>> position and not at the same place as 'global' or 'static' where I
>> expected it. Back then Dmitry asked me to provide a patch to check out
>> the
Hello Larry,
Sunday, January 4, 2009, 10:05:25 PM, you wrote:
> On Sunday 04 January 2009 10:45:30 am Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
>> Marcus Boerger schrieb:
>> > $f = function() { use $x; }
>>
>> +1 for consistency.
> +1 for consistency as well, which is
Hello Internals, Dmitry, Lukas, Johannes,
some time back (August 08) I complained about 'use' being at a weird
position and not at the same place as 'global' or 'static' where I
expected it. Back then Dmitry asked me to provide a patch to check out
the alternative. Now during the holidys I final
Hello all,
current state of the patch is attached.
marcus
Saturday, January 3, 2009, 3:47:44 PM, you wrote:
> Hello Johannes,
> Friday, January 2, 2009, 7:16:32 PM, you wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 17:38 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>>> So far it is.
Hello Johannes,
Friday, January 2, 2009, 7:16:32 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 17:38 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>> So far it is. Yet I as much as you do not like the inconsistency. So I
>> spend a little bit on providing the following patch that should do
&
Hello Marcin,
Friday, January 2, 2009, 8:56:41 PM, you wrote:
> Hello internals and a happy new year.
> I've been meaning to ask this for some time now: why aren't closures
> serializable? The only on-list discussion about this that i've found is:
> http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=119837318
Hello Lukas,
Friday, January 2, 2009, 2:59:40 PM, you wrote:
> On 01.01.2009, at 17:55, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> hi!
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>>> Hello Lukas,
>>>
>>> if anything requires an internal API change
no bound $this there is no class
and thus the closure becomes a function rather than a method.
marcus
> Cheers,
> - David
> On 01.01.2009, at 17:50, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>> Hello David,
>>
>> I added test closure_037.phpt to demonstrate this.
>>
>> marcus
nvoke')) check in userspace code.
> Which brings me to the next question - will
> $method = 'something';
> $bar->$method();
> work? Not sure if it's necessary; just curious for the most part.
> - David
> On 01.01.2009, at 17:06, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>
. But for the moment we do not need
it badly and the patch with the increased consistency is good enough.
marcus
Thursday, January 1, 2009, 4:09:39 PM, you wrote:
> Hello Hannes,
> Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 8:33:43 PM, you wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 20:12, Marcus Bo
Hello Hannes,
Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 8:33:43 PM, you wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 20:12, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>> Hello Lars,
>>
>> Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 6:59:08 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Markus,
>>
>>> have you measured
Hello Lukas,
if anything requires an internal API change than we at least should do
those parts. Besides this issue was long ago raised and imo should go in.
As we get more and more people testing what 5.3 will be we get more and
more complains about the lack of these. And isn't that the goal of
one additional hash-lookup per
method call on a default class for a non found function. So whenever
we would normally call __call we add an additional lookup.
> cu, Lars
> Am Mittwoch, den 31.12.2008, 17:38 +0100 schrieb Marcus Boerger:
>> Hello David,
>>
>> Tuesday, Decembe
Hello David,
Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 5:02:43 PM, you wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I played with __invoke today:
> class Curry
> {
>protected $callable;
>protected $args;
>public static function create($callable)
>{
> $curry = new self($callable, array_slice(func_get_args(), 1)
Hello Etienne,
Wednesday, December 17, 2008, 7:59:01 PM, you wrote:
> Hello,
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Lars Strojny wrote:
>> Hi Guilherme,
>>
>> thanks for moving the discussion to the list.
>>
>> Am Mittwoch, den 17.12.2008, 15:31 -0200 schrieb Guilherme Blanco:
>> [...]
>>> It seems
Hello Gregory,
Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 8:50:21 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> This bug:
> http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=46680
> uncovers 2 larger issues.
> 1) Where should a function like file_put_contents() create its file if
> it doesn't already exist and FILE_USE_INCLUDE_PATH is specified? Th
Hello Hannes,
Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 10:58:17 AM, you wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 00:59, Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The PHP development team would like to announce the immediate availability
>> of PHP 5.2.8. This release addresses a regression introduced by 5.2.7 in
elate to patch, minor, major release schemes we
> have right now. What you are proposing works for linux, where there is
> only one "branch" and they can effectively do the odd/even approach.
> But, what would it mean for PHP and our current versioning schema?
> On 8-Dec-
Hello Ilia,
given our current development model I completely agree. Thus I would like
to change it as described earlier. I am convinced that only following the
even=stable & odd=dev/testing model allows for longer maintenanance cycles
and fast development at the same time.
marcus
Monday, Decem
Hello Rodrigo,
Monday, December 8, 2008, 5:48:00 PM, you wrote:
>> Which reminds me that we still have no way to do that in userland.
>> In userland you cannot write:
>> function foo(Object $bla = NULL).
>> The missing part is 'Object' as a type hint. I once long ago suggested
>> using 'class'
Hello Stanislav,
Monday, December 8, 2008, 4:50:52 PM, you wrote:
> Hi!
>> According to the manual and the PHP source the signature is this:
>> public function getValue(stdclass $object)
> Manual is unfortunately not exact in this point - true signature for it
> is public function getValue([o
Hello Pierre,
Monday, December 8, 2008, 4:57:17 PM, you wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Johannes Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> let's take this to a new thread so it'S not hidden in other discussions:
>>
>> On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 16:06 +0100, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>>>
Hello Pierre,
Monday, December 8, 2008, 4:08:49 PM, you wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Hannes Magnusson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 15:24, Pierre Joye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Hello Ilia,
brilliant :-)
Sunday, December 7, 2008, 7:16:43 PM, you wrote:
> I will be re-branching 5.2.7 with this revert for the purpose of 5.2.8
> this week. This will allow the normal 5.2 bug fixing to continue as
> normal.
> On 6-Dec-08, at 3:35 PM, Scott MacVicar wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
Hello Ilia,
Ilia, this is ultimately your call but I suggest we drop 5.2.7, explain
that people shouldn't use it on php.net news and then provide 5.2.8.
marcus
Saturday, December 6, 2008, 9:35:42 PM, you wrote:
> Hey,
> There have been several bug reports about magic_quotes_gpc being
> bro
Hello Scott,
Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 8:33:59 PM, you wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2008, at 18:56, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello Stanislav,
>>
>> why not have a secondary extension definition in ext/hash?
>>
>> Wednesday, November 26,
Hello Stanislav,
why not have a secondary extension definition in ext/hash?
Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 7:06:03 PM, you wrote:
> Hi!
>> Then again, we maintain BC aside from this single call to determine if
>> the extension is loaded, so I guess yeah .. lets just remove it .. we
>> are ex
Hello Christopher,
Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 3:27:45 AM, you wrote:
> Hej Marcus,
> I like your approach. It is clear and simple. It would probably solve
> 90% of the cases, where delegation is needed.
> I want to add that a manually defined method should automatically
> overwrite a delegated
Hello Stefan,
Sunday, November 16, 2008, 4:36:18 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> Christopher Vogt schrieb:
>> Hej everybody,
>>
>> I really liked to see the Grafts proposal.
> Well, I'm still in love with the more powerful (because they are
> interweaveable(breakable)) Traits ;)
>> The Grafts proposa
Hello Lukas,
Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 8:14:31 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> here are a few questions that need to be answered ASAP.
> If at all possible keep your votes as short as possible. I think all
> of the above topics have been discussed quite a lot on the list. So I
> hope voters can
Hello Stanislav,
thanks :-)
Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 9:58:02 PM, you wrote:
> Hi!
> I want to add error_log option (message_type = 4) which would send the
> message directly to sapi_module.log_message whatever error_log INI
> setting is. This would allow more flexibility in using SAPI
Hello Sebastian,
allowing to read is more than enough. And ofr the record I did not like
that at all. If you need to write to a private variable, then obviously
your class design is wrong. And testing is no argument, as you can nicely
design so that this is not necessary.
marcus
Wednesda
Hello Jani,
Monday, November 10, 2008, 11:41:44 AM, you wrote:
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just wanted to ask everybody to skim over the changes for PHP 5.3 we
>> have in CVS (especially bigger stuff like the addition/removal of an
>> extension etc.). Please bring up any areas yo
Hello Gregory,
Friday, November 7, 2008, 10:14:50 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> Stas and company decided that they wanted namespaces to have two legal
> syntax choices:
> 1) single namespace per file:
> namespace foo;
> ...
?>>
> 2) multiple namespaces per file:
> namespace foo1 {
> }
> namespace
Hello Gregory,
Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 5:15:35 PM, you wrote:
> Christian Schneider wrote:
>> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>>> one could also do
>>> 1) ns
>>> 2) global
>>> 3) autoload
>>
>> I'm in favour of this (if it avoids performance problems) as I don't see
>> a problem with giving global p
Hello Lukas,
Wednesday, November 5, 2008, 12:32:19 AM, you wrote:
> On 05.11.2008, at 00:12, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>>> classes:
>>> 1) try ns::class
>>> 2) autoload ns::class
>>> 3) fail
>>
>> Since we can stack autoload we could provide a c-le
Hello Steph,
Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 5:44:50 PM, you wrote:
> Hi Greg, all,
>> For this reason, the only resolution that we should be considering is:
>>
>> classes:
>> 1) try ns::class
>> 2) autoload ns::class
>> 3) fail
>>
>> functions/constants:
>> 1) try ns::function/ns::const
>> 2) try in
Hello Internals,
with many thanks to Greg we now have settled on \ as the namespace
separator. The next topic on the agenda is name resolution:
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaceresolution
Best regards,
Marcus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit
Hello Ionut,
some remarks about your proposal:
1) You can turn any array into a Traversable using
(Recursive)ArrayIterator. Though this solution is still slow. The issue is
that the c-level code needs to verify the current pointer every single time
it uses it and that means traversing the array
Hello Christian,
Thursday, October 30, 2008, 10:55:48 AM, you wrote:
> Hi,
>> Modified files: (Branch: PHP_5_3)
>> /php-src/ext/standard math.c
>> Log:
>> Fixed bug #42294 (Unified solution for round() based on C99 round)
>> [DOC] New implementation of round() to wo
Hello Ron,
we agreed long ago on a very easy scheme, there shall only be is-a and
public classes.
marcus
Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 9:12:30 AM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm hoping I don't cause yet another flame war about the n-word ;)
> I was wondering if namespaces are going to support class
Hello Greg,
thanks for finalizing this.
marcus
Sunday, October 26, 2008, 4:37:37 PM, you wrote:
> Hi all,
> Let me make this brief: there will be lots of complaining about the
> namespace separator.
> Stop. Now.
> It serves no possible useful purpose. If you want to discuss why this
> wa
Hello Stefan,
If the engine fails to lookup a class and detected a namespace separator
we could actually add this check as well and suggest it as a probable cause
of the error.
marcus
Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 1:49:00 PM, you wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
> Johannes Schlüter schrieb:
>>> to me it d
Hello marius,
typical slashdot php artical. 'PHP is the worst crap ever - god bless
perl' The issue in this case is a confused user. See other mails to
do it right and an archive of thousands of mails discussing the topic (and
no, I am not kidding about that amount). And I have more personal
Hello Ryan,
during 5.0 alpha phase I had that actually implemented. But it turned
out to be too much of a slowdown and also could not solve all dependency
graphs. For example you can obviously not solve dependency cycles. So at
the end of the experiement we decided against it.
Maybe we could im
Hello David,
Sunday, October 19, 2008, 1:02:21 PM, you wrote:
>>> shift+;(x3) vs \
>>
> Ok I'll try to make a very neutral comment. For the moment most are
> still using an english keyboard (no matter which english in this case
> and I'd actually be interested in knowing numbers for a fact
Hello all,
Greg was so kind to give me part of his awesome upcoming Pyrus code. He
actually has it running with both ':::' and '\' as namespace separators.
So I thought I'd help out a tiny tiny bit by giving you all the choice of
having a look at actual working code:
http://php.net/~helly/tripl
Hello William,
Friday, October 17, 2008, 7:57:53 PM, you wrote:
> Marcel Esser wrote:
>> Using ::: as a namespace seperator would be great.
> A general rule of telephony dialing and other data input, three of
> the same character will too often be entered or recognized as two
> or four character
Hello Lukas,
--stas_s->option->because_I_could_not_read_that_code;
marcus
Thursday, October 16, 2008, 6:51:29 PM, you wrote:
> On 16.10.2008, at 16:14, Steph Fox wrote:
>> Please can those people who didn't already express a clear and
>> relevant
>> opinion, express it now? We don't ha
Hello Greg,
Many thanks for wirting a nice proposal. Now, I consider #2 and #4 as
no options, just as most everyone else. Regarding #3, I see it
contradicting our KISS approach. You can actually write code where an
Identifier in two scripts that share the same includes mean something
completely
Hello Gregory,
Saturday, October 11, 2008, 7:45:09 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm grappling with a design flaw I just uncovered in stream filters, and
> need some advice on how best to fix it. The problem exists since the
> introduction of stream filters, and has 3 parts. 2 of them can probably
>
Hello Jeremy,
Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 12:50:23 AM, you wrote:
> Something that would be extremely useful is a comparator interface in
> SPL, which could be used to easily implement sorting for objects.
> Example:
> class Foo implements Comparator
> {
> // is numeric for this exampl
Hello Jani,
we're in alpha and fix all of those issues.
in contrast to 99.9% of our users it is very easy for you to disable it.
But the majority will only get the extension when we enable by default. And
it is one of the big plans for 5.3 to finally support native packaging to
make a lot of
Hello Michael,
I think it is pretty useful.
marcus
Monday, September 22, 2008, 8:17:58 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
> distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
> time to ask me and you that quest
Hello Hannes,
Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 3:04:16 PM, you wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 14:54, Lukas Kahwe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That being said, there is some overlap in features with existing
>> functionality. Maybe if we schedule this for PHP 6, then we might want to
>> mark
Hello Gregory,
Sunday, September 14, 2008, 7:40:01 AM, you wrote:
> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> In other words, there is simply no comparison. Userspace class usage
>>> outnumbers internal class usage by an order of magnitude in typical OO
>>> PHP code.
>>
>> I didn't claim userspace
Hello Ionut,
a Friend suggested to replace it with a Euro sign, so that PHP code gets
worth more :-)
marcus
Thursday, September 18, 2008, 8:30:37 PM, you wrote:
> Actually, I somehow understand what he wants, considering we'll soon
> have lambdas and closures. I mean, in case of javascript
Hello Greg,
Friday, September 12, 2008, 11:35:11 PM, you wrote:
> Marcus Boerger wrote:
>> Hello Greg,
>>
>> please don't
> OK. Nice working with you Marcus, this is high class stuff. I'm glad
> to see the work I'm doing is taken so seriously.
Args
Hello Greg,
please don't.
marcus
Friday, September 12, 2008, 9:11:39 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> This is a simple patch that allows files like this:
> main.php:
>
>
> template example
>
>
>
> namespace my::template;
> // stuff
?>>
>
> to work without parse error.
> Greg
> P.S. thi
Hello Lester,
Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 7:43:25 PM, you wrote:
> Marcus Boerger wrote:
>> Hello Lester,
>>> Another major concern here since maintaining BC with *PHP4* is still an
>>> unfortunate current requirement in the field is what happens when PEAR
>
Hello Lester,
Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 6:05:38 AM, you wrote:
> While I have loaded 5.3.? changing any of my existing code base to remove
> warnings is not likely to happen any time soon since compatibility with users
> who are still running older versions of PHP still needs to be maintained.
Hello Stanislav,
Monday, September 8, 2008, 9:23:09 PM, you wrote:
> Hi!
>> initial hard work of trying to do something new). Especially in this
>> sense I would recommend all people on this list to make sure they use
>> language that encourages people from coming out of the shadows on this
>
Hello mr,
Monday, September 8, 2008, 6:58:19 PM, you wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm having problems passing an array to the function call_user_function as
> parameter. This is the code:
> zval *args[3], *func, *retval;
args maust be *** not **
> MAKE_STD_ZVAL(func);
> MAKE_STD_ZVAL(retval)
Hello Stanislav,
Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 9:58:15 AM, you wrote:
> Hi!
>> So I ask you all to review the RFC and provide feedback. If you feel
> Here's my feedback on the RFC.
> 1. The RFC seems to assume or imply that PHP programmers have extensive
> C++ experience. IMHO it is not true f
Hello Stanislav,
Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 9:51:38 AM, you wrote:
> Hi!
>> The problem is that the loading/unloading of the scanner and parser can
>> be significant overhead, and by cramming all code into a single file,
>> can result in a 10%-30% performance improvement over code in separate
>
Hello Gregory,
Sunday, August 31, 2008, 10:04:23 PM, you wrote:
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> All the recent discussions about namespaces, have left many of us
>> wondering if our implementation is rock solid or not. However the
>> discussions were not really well organized. Thi
Hello Diogo,
Sunday, August 31, 2008, 12:50:15 AM, you wrote:
> Exactly...
> Is that normal workings or more like a bugie one?
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
>>>
>>> Diogo Neves escribió:
Hi all,
I'm
Hello Stanislav,
Friday, August 29, 2008, 7:53:02 PM, you wrote:
> Hi!
>> It wasn't designed to have multiple namespaces at all to begin with. But as
> You mean multiple namespaces per file, right? Otherwise it sounds kind
> of silly. Yes, it wasn't designed to have multiple namespaces per fil
Hello Stanislav,
Friday, August 29, 2008, 10:00:08 PM, you wrote:
> Hi!
>> Seems like you are answering lot of questions about namespaces lately
>> with "that's not how the model was designed".
> Not really, and it's not the reason, the reason why it wasn't designed
> that way was explained be
1 - 100 of 1867 matches
Mail list logo
