Ron Korving wrote:
>The last item in the array is replaced, not by the first one of the second
>foreach, but by the item before the last item. That just doesn't make sense
>at all.
>
>
This is where you're going wrong (and where I was going wrong in
thinking about this before Antony's message).
Enjoy your presumptions, I'm sure they're great fun at parties.
Robert Cummings wrote:
> Also,
>quite probably unlike you, many of us programmer try to make our code
>perfectly clean from notices and warnings
>
>
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: h
Either way, I really don't think it's worth any fuss. It's just a
notice, and whether it is there or not shouldn't really matter that
much. This doesn't deserve all the attention it's been getting on this list.
Robert Cummings wrote:
>My soul didn't curdle and fall out of my ears before the notic
It's a notice. Your soul won't curdle and fall out of your ears just
because your code produces a notice which you can easily prevent from
being output.
Robert Cummings wrote:
>I think the reference notice stuff is a bit ridiculous. I mean I can
>understand the concern behind:
>
>function &fo
I can't say I'm quite sure why anyone is continuing to argue against
something that's already been denied, especially in a thread about
ending the argument.
David Zülke wrote:
Fookin' Jaysus man.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.
Jacques Marneweck wrote:
I think the mailling lists strip attachments?
Attaching a file to this message to test the theory.
For the list of people who've put work into PHP, please see
http://www.php.net/credits.php
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: htt
Yermo Lamers wrote:
I've not had alot of luck with reporting bugs through the bug tracker;
For instance see
http://bugs.php.net/31508
where the guy claims PHP can't do recursion without crashing ... Ummm?
To be fair, he is correct in what he says; PHP cannot do recursion
beyond a certain level,
Christian Schneider wrote:
Matthew Charles Kavanagh wrote:
Perhaps you're not seeing my point, or perhaps you don't care about
users? I speak as a developer, not as some guy with a crap webhost, and
So according to you every single extension should be put bundled and
installed by d
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Matthew Charles Kavanagh wrote:
The issue in my mind is one of portability. It would be nice, as a
developer working in PHP, to be able to rely on functionality like
encryption (and other unrelated goodies) being available on Joe User's
$5/month we
(earlier message, sending to list)
Derick Rethans wrote:
This is definitely not planned - we rather not bundle any library, and
definitely not an LGPL library.
Reinventing the wheel by providing encryption routines in PHP does not
make sense really. PHP is meant to be a glue to provide access to
li
David Zülke wrote:
Guys, I'm sure I'll annoy the heck out of some on this list, but there's
still the question whether PHP should prevent any case of dumbness on the
developer side. Whatever we do, some developers out there will be way more
idiotic than we can ever imagine. And if any company chose
11 matches
Mail list logo
