On 10 July 2018 at 15:26, Dustin Wheeler wrote:
*snip*
> Personally (for Class Friendship), I opted to target either 7.4 or 8.0
> (whichever was decided to be next-in-line)
>
Seems to me this is one of the issues - that this is something that isn't
just set in stone. If there was an overall ro
On 3 Jan 2018 18:13, "Chase Peeler" wrote:
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:16 AM Andrey Andreev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Chase Peeler
> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed
> > filtering were expensive or hard to find. They are
On 7 Nov 2017 16:40, "Eli White" wrote:
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Peter Lind wrote:
> Might be worth noting that fixing the mailing lists does not amount to
> taking on the php.net mail servers. The two are separate - just in case
> someone should be up for one, but no
Might be worth noting that fixing the mailing lists does not amount to
taking on the php.net mail servers. The two are separate - just in case
someone should be up for one, but not both tasks.
On 7 November 2017 at 14:48, Eli White wrote:
> Just chiming in that I have constantly had issues (sinc
On 12 August 2016 at 13:15, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 12/08/16 12:09, Peter Lind wrote:
> > And if all typos were switching 'e' and 'n', what a wonderful world it
> > would be. That is not the case though - it's possible to accidentally
> enter
> >
On 12 August 2016 at 13:01, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 12/08/16 11:01, Peter Lind wrote:
> > On 12 August 2016 at 11:54, Rowan Collins
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/08/2016 10:21, Lester Caine wrote:
> >>
> >>> Many of my systems run on secure intra-n
On 12 August 2016 at 12:52, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 12/08/16 11:23, Peter Lind wrote:
> > On 12 August 2016 at 12:13, Lester Caine wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/08/16 10:42, Peter Lind wrote:
> >>> On 12 August 2016 at 11:25, Lester Caine wrote:
> >>
On 12 August 2016 at 12:13, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 12/08/16 10:42, Peter Lind wrote:
> > On 12 August 2016 at 11:25, Lester Caine wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the ideas on this feature.
> >
> > A few thoughts.
> > 1. The RFC for this isn't a chan
On 12 August 2016 at 11:54, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On 12/08/2016 10:21, Lester Caine wrote:
>
>> Many of my systems run on secure intra-nets and much of the 'safety
>> concerns' that have been brought up recently as 'essential' simply don't
>> apply.
>>
>
> There's always rogue employees / studen
On 12 August 2016 at 11:25, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 12/08/16 10:07, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> >> > I'm thinking
> >> > $var->setConstraint()
> >> > $var->setEscape()
> >> > $var->setReadOnly()
> >> >
> >> > Rather than having to build 'reflections' classes to pull out data
> that
> >> > a sim
On 10 Aug 2016 19:05, "Bishop Bettini" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Peter Lind
wrote:
>>
>> On 10 August 2016 at 10:51, Lester Caine wrote:
>>
>> > On 09/08/16 06:54, Sara Golemon wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:59
On 10 August 2016 at 10:51, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 09/08/16 06:54, Sara Golemon wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> >> So Composer IS now the rule rather than some optional extra?
> >>
> > Yes, the community has decided that for us. Or at least, Composer is
> > a
On 2 August 2016 at 09:11, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> Hi Tomáš,
>
> It has been thought about, and several people are looking at an
> implementation of generics: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/generics However,
> it seems quite hard to implement.
>
> I am beginning to wonder if rather than aiming for full su
On 9 May 2016 at 08:45, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I have the feeling that if everyone involved *explicitly* prefixed their
> > opinions with "I think that", this would be a better and more fruitful
>
> Is there any other option?
>
As in "better options"? I don't think so. As in "coul
On 9 May 2016 at 07:37, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > "|>" is just a building block for simpler coding. It could be used
> badly, but
> > it helps a lot. Procedural code could be much simpler and readable with
> "|>".
>
> I don't see how it helps anything. It just replaces clear variable
On 30 Apr 2016 16:43, "Lester Caine" wrote:
>
> On 30/04/16 14:57, Marco Pivetta wrote:
> > Relevant: https://youtu.be/UvD1VjRvGIk
>
> Trimming the now useless error code
>
> As I said in the message ... no problem if you simply have a SINGLE
> pathway through the code. That video simply assu
On 14 April 2016 at 01:43, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > On 14 באפר׳ 2016, at 7:14, Larry Garfield
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/13/16 3:24 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >>> May I suggest you the following article (more of a starting point into
> >>> Ceylon actually) regarding this topic:
>
On 25 January 2016 at 12:43, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dan Ackroyd [mailto:dan...@basereality.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 12:48 AM
> > To: Stanislav Malyshev
> > Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adop
On 21 January 2016 at 22:24, Ronald Chmara wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Peter Lind
> wrote:
> > On 21 January 2016 at 21:53, Ronald Chmara wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Flyingmana >
> >> wrote:
> >> > Is there any way
On 21 January 2016 at 21:53, Ronald Chmara wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Flyingmana
> wrote:
> > An RFC could still be valuable for the project, even if the original
> > author leaved, so taking it over should be possible. And it should not
> > be painful in any way.
> > Would we ne
On 13 January 2016 at 16:49, Adam Howard wrote:
> Alright, you want a straight up answer, I'll provide you one. Here is
> my constructive criticism. I'd like to be able to opt-out of this
> conversation and not further have it flood my inbox and be able to actually
> get back to what matters an
On 7 Jan 2016 20:59, "Chase Peeler" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 2016 2:44 AM, "Paul M. Jones" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:39, Pierre Joye wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 8, 2016 2:27 AM, "Paul M. Jones" wrote:
> > > >
On 6 January 2016 at 21:43, François Laupretre wrote:
> Le 06/01/2016 20:38, Ryan Pallas a écrit :
>
>>
>> I agree, a conflict resolution document *and team* seems infinitely
>> better.
>> This team's job is to resolve things quietly and without further incident,
>> however if action may be requi
On 5 January 2016 at 20:26, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > That is the problem: you cannot discuss how to protect the accused
> > without having the context of the abused. As you have yourself pointed
> > out with examples, it is a tradeoff.
>
> But that is exactly what I want - to have fu
On 5 January 2016 at 19:53, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Yes, I thought it up, hence it's theoretical. If you think that means it
> > hasn't happened countless times along those lines, you need to learn how
> > to google.
>
> I hope you realize how weak is an argument along the lines of
On 5 January 2016 at 19:42, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > It's interesting to note how few people in this thread consider the
> > perspective of potential harassed or abused people - instead only
> > focusing on how to protect the accused.
>
> We do not discuss it much because it is a) co
On 5 January 2016 at 16:59, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > How exactly would you feel about having all of this made explicit to all
> > the other PHP devs? Presumably you look up to some of these people -
>
> I presume you would feel bad. However your example is purely theoretical
> and ha
>
> +1. The proposed CoC is too vague for a multi-cultural environment like
> ours. Reference to ethics, for example, is subjective by nature. But I'm OK
> for a more precise text that everybody must explicitely approve before
> getting any karma.
>
> But I am opposed to any form of law enforcement
It's interesting to note how few people in this thread consider the
perspective of potential harassed or abused people - instead only focusing
on how to protect the accused.
Quick check: how many times in the history of PHP has someone been called
out, wrongly, for being abusive or harassing other
On 5 January 2016 at 05:49, Paul M. Jones wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 2016, at 22:42, Sara Golemon wrote:
> >
> > Formalized rules and due process are terrible for a free and open
> society?
>
> This proposal is neither formalized, nor due process. You're great at C,
> Sara, but you're horrible at l
On 4 September 2015 at 09:43, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Peter Lind wrote:
> > On 4 September 2015 at 08:44, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
> >
> > You're arguing that, subjectively, to you - parentheses make things
> harder
> > to read. For
On 4 September 2015 at 08:44, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
*snip*
> But even just #3 seems kinda "harder" to read than the form without
> any parenthesis.
>
> function partial($cb) { return ($left) ~> ($right) ~> $cb($left, $right); }
>
> I know the parenthesis are optional in just one scenario, but I'd
On 4 August 2015 at 13:56, Scott Arciszewski wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> It's not really a "made-up string format", in the sense that it has a
> precedent (PDO).
>
>
True, and that format sucks royally. It trips people up.
Combining several arguments into one string is bad design. If it was good
de
On 4 August 2015 at 10:13, Lauri Kenttä wrote:
> On 2015-08-03 23:54, Scott Arciszewski wrote:
>
>> $AES = new \PCO\Symmetric('openssl:cipher=AES-128');
>>
>
> It would be great if you could just ask for cipher=AES-128 without
> explicitly specifying the provider (openssl).
>
>
Even better wo
On 13 April 2015 at 22:20, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2015, Peter Lind wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wanted to get into PHP code development so I grabbed a random bug from
> > bugs.php.net. Which turned out to be
> https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=69378
&
On 13 April 2015 at 22:20, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2015, Peter Lind wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wanted to get into PHP code development so I grabbed a random bug from
> > bugs.php.net. Which turned out to be
> https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=69378
&
Hi,
I wanted to get into PHP code development so I grabbed a random bug from
bugs.php.net. Which turned out to be https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=69378
The problem the bug report describes is that creating a diff between two
dates and then subtracting the diff from the later date does not give yo
It sounds like you're suggesting that all work on PHP that does not boil
down to bug fixes be stopped.
I'd suggest an alternative: fork PHP and only merge bugfixes in to your own
version. Best of both worlds, you get to keep your beloved PHP pristine
without any of the cumbersome new features, and
Last time it stranded here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg67294.html
And I believe it's been up a number of times before that.
On 14 October 2014 14:47, Kris Craig wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> Does anybody know why we have $_GET and $_POST, but not $_PUT and
> $_DELETE? As
On 26 September 2014 13:37, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Peter Lind
> wrote:
>
>> On 26 September 2014 12:48, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On 26 Sep 2014, at 11:46, marius adrian popa wrote:
>> >
&g
On 26 September 2014 12:48, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 26 Sep 2014, at 11:46, marius adrian popa wrote:
>
> > Maybe we need an official stance about shellshock
>
> Do we? As I understand it, this isn’t a PHP-level vulnerability, and I’m
> not sure there’s much we can reasonably do about it. Sim
On 30 July 2014 19:57, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> > On 30 Jul 2014, at 18:51, Adam Harvey wrote:
> >> -1 explanation: I don't think %% is clear enough
> >
> > % returns the 2nd part of the integer division, %% returns the 1st.
> Surely that ma
On 28 September 2013 12:25, Leigh wrote:
>
> On Sep 28, 2013 10:39 AM, "Peter Lind" wrote:
> >
> > So you're stuck with two choices: accept that PHP security is lax and
> that as a result a lot of code will have many attack vectors, or try to
> change
On 28 September 2013 11:27, Madara Uchiha wrote:
> You guys are missing the point. This isn't a language level issue. I
> can imagine some sort of package or a library being made, some sort of
> wrapper around the current session commands, perhaps integrated into
> some sort of extension.
>
> But
On 27 September 2013 12:54, Leigh wrote:
> On 27 September 2013 11:39, Peter Lind wrote:
> > On 27 September 2013 12:12, Leigh wrote:
> >>
> >> So on a successful session hijack (correct SID, new IP) the attacker
> >> gets a new SID and keeps the val
On 27 September 2013 12:12, Leigh wrote:
> On 26 September 2013 11:32, Tjerk Meesters
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Leigh wrote:
> >>
> >> There's several scenarios where a users IP changes and you don't want to
> >> drop their session. (That doesn't mean it should simply ha
On 24 September 2013 16:59, Daniel Lowrey wrote:
> The bigger issue here is that the superglobals are a leaky abstraction. Any
> HTTP request method is allowed to have an entity body, so should we also
> create $_PATCH and $_PUT and $_ZANZIBAR to handle less-frequently used
> request methods? Whe
On 19 July 2013 12:34, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2013/7/19 Peter Lind
>
>> On 19 July 2013 11:18, Dan Cryer wrote:
>>
>>> What's the intended use case for string increment / decrement?
>>>
>>>
>> Personally, I instantly think
On 19 July 2013 11:18, Dan Cryer wrote:
> What's the intended use case for string increment / decrement?
>
>
Personally, I instantly think of mirroring spreadsheet columns - works
quite well in that context.
> It just seems like madness to me, using mathematical operators with
> strings, produc
Interesting to note that although Perl 6 is apparently capable of
decrementing strings, it doesn't fully mirror the incrementing:
http://feather.perl6.nl/syn/S03.html#line_516
Specifically: decrementing 'AAA' would not turn into 'ZZ' but would error,
according to that link
--
WWW: plphp.dk / p
On 27 June 2013 11:04, Tom Oram wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks for your reply, the main reason would be operator overloading rather
> than the typecasting example, the typecasting version is more for
> consistency. I am also fairly that there might be situations where it would
> be useful to set
On 26 June 2013 13:54, Robert Stoll wrote:
> As far as I see it, it is kind of an operator overload mechanism for the
> assign operator.
> This can be useful for small utility classes such as Money, Email etc.
>
> An example was given:
> $price = new MoneyValue();
> $price := 29.99;
>
> Instead o
On 1 May 2013 14:55, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> Then why are you not convincing them first to get them on board as support
>> for your proposal.
>
>
> It's not a proposal yet - I didn't want to write a lengthy RFC just to
> learn that all I had was a brainfart, or that everyone was going to be
> tot
On 1 May 2013 14:35, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> >
> > This is a fringe feature, as evidenced by the fact that you
> > are having a hard time convincing people that it is needed
>
>
> As with anything that isn't already established and well-known, it's hard
> to convince anyone they need anything the
On 6 March 2013 15:50, Alexandre "TAZ" dos Santos Andrade <
alexandre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This item
> 2. Introduce base class for all PHP classes. E.g. Object. It would help
> in type hinting and allow to add new common methods without any magic.
>
> StdClass Already do that
>
>
>
On 20 February 2013 00:12, Nikita Nefedov wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:10:22 -, Rasmus Lerdorf
> wrote:
>
>> On 02/19/2013 03:07 PM, Nikita Nefedov wrote:
>>
>>> Are you grepping for all the functions or you are grepping just for some
>>> specific function? If so, you are likely already kn
As an "outsider" I would say consistency is king. Knowing that I can
rely on when new versions come out is much more important than whether
they contain 9 or 11 bug fixes. So, pick a schedule that works and
stick to it.
Just my thoughts.
--
WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk
CV: careers.stackoverflow.com
You realize that this is not the list of PHP FIG, right?
On 16 December 2012 15:26, Lester Caine wrote:
> Lars Strojny wrote:
>>
>> for all of you who don’t know, PHP FIG (Framework Interoperability
>> Group,http://www.php-fig.org/) discusses ways frameworks and libraries can
>> work together and
On 4 September 2012 15:09, Lester Caine wrote:
> Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>>
>>> >??? OH YES IT DOES !!!
>>> >MANY times I get a a few lines of text on a white screen ...
>>> >Switch off E_STRICT and everything works fine ... as it was on PHP5.2
Best solution from a random developers perspective:
- stick the 4-line solution in the docs and on to the bug report. Then
mark as won't implement
It's a far better solution than choosing a random format for users, as
should be more than evident by now.
Regards
Peter
--
WWW: plphp.dk / plind.d
On 31 July 2012 22:02, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Peter,
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Peter Lind wrote:
>>
>> On 31 July 2012 18:21, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>
>> *snip*
>>
>> >
>> > Also, be aware that BCrypt only uses the first
On 31 July 2012 18:21, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
*snip*
>
> Also, be aware that BCrypt only uses the first 72 characters of the
> password field. So if you use a hex encoded sha512 output, a good deal of
> entropy would be lost (almost half of it)...
>
Seeing as the hashing function will default (
On 14 June 2012 17:50, Ángel González wrote:
*snip*
> May I ask how would you end up at the situation where the attackers have
> the password hashes but not the salt?
>
> Any process which needs to read the password hashes will also need
> knowledge of the salt. Thus an attacker would most likel
On 14 June 2012 15:35, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Peter,
>
>> Whether or not a CSPRNG is needed depends on what you're doing, your
>> needed level of security. Perhaps add a parameter to control this, so
>> it would be possible to make use of this function even if you need the
>> maximum level of se
* snip*
>> Stas has the right approach, not only should the methods be simplified and
>> platform/algorithm agnostic but have a proper salt built in (there are a
>> few CSPRNG implementations around), I've seen salts used from numbers to
>> md5's to just being skipped altogether.
>
> Well, just to
On 3 May 2012 13:12, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2012, zoe slattery wrote:
>
>> (a) Would it still be helpful if the tests could be run faster?
>
> Yes.
Running the tests on my netbook takes a very long time - yet is
presumably still a good thing to do. Having them run in parallel would
On 18 April 2012 07:56, Alexey Shein wrote:
*snip*
>
> One question about implementation:
> Given we have this function
>> function create_query($where, $order_by, $join_type='', $execute = false,
>> $report_errors = true) {}
> and this statement
>> On the engine level, it will be implemented
On 22 February 2012 20:04, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 2/22/12 12:37 PM, Peter Lind wrote:
>
>>> I would also support this. There's a myriad reasons why something may
>>
>> return NULL or FALSE when you expect it to return an object, some of them
>> even
On Feb 22, 2012 7:05 PM, "Larry Garfield" wrote:
>
> On 2/21/12 5:45 PM, Tjerk Meesters wrote:
>>
>> On 22 Feb, 2012, at 2:03 AM, Ralf Lang wrote:
>>
> I see no reason why it would be not desirable to have PHP raise the
> exception rather than putting more or less repeating code snippets
On 30 November 2011 19:59, Will Fitch wrote:
> Again, back to my question of why not use:
>
> MyComponent::factory($bar, $option);
>
> Depending on what ::factory does, it could then pass $option(s) to the
> constructor or method getting your instance needed.
>
It brings to mind a review of Dart
On 2 June 2011 16:50, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 02.06.2011 16:24, schrieb Marcel Esser:
>> I am not convinced that making this an error is a good idea.
>>
>> If I receive a $_GET/$_POST value that I expect to be a string value, but I
>> actually received an array, this would
>> mean I need to
On 2 June 2011 13:03, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Peter Lind wrote:
>> On 2 June 2011 12:40, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> *snip*
>>
>>>
>>> No, it is the same that what we proposed. What we proposed is that
>>> every rel
On 2 June 2011 12:40, Pierre Joye wrote:
*snip*
>
> No, it is the same that what we proposed. What we proposed is that
> every release is actually a LTS release. What Ubuntu uses works fine
> for distros given that it is a distro with an insane amount of totally
> unrelated projects they distrib
On 2 June 2011 10:23, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Peter Lind wrote:
>
>> Sorry for jumping into the thread, but I couldn't help noting that you seem
>> confused about the distro suggestion. I think Ubuntu was the example, and
>> there's
On Jun 2, 2011 12:46 AM, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
>
> hi Chris
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Christopher Jones
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 06/01/2011 03:09 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> >
> >> URL: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess
> >
> > Pierre,
> >
> > There are some immediately practical thin
On Apr 29, 2011 4:47 PM, "Martin Scotta" wrote:
>
>
> Martin Scotta
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Peter Lind
wrote:
>>
>> 2011/4/28 Martin Scotta :
>>
>> * snip *
>>
>> > IMHO I would not trust on any return value, a
2011/4/28 Martin Scotta :
* snip *
> IMHO I would not trust on any return value, as PHP did not ensure anything
> about them.
> Even more, I do not write code that depend on return values, I prefer to
> use input/output parameters,
I cannot help but wonder why PHP is your language of choice. I m
On 19 January 2011 20:05, la...@garfieldtech.com wrote:
> So it sounds like the general answer is that if you pass a complex array to
> a function by value and mess with it, data is duplicated for every item you
> modify and its direct ancestors up to the root variable but not for the rest
> of th
On Friday, November 26, 2010, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:25:32 -0000, Peter Lind wrote:
>
>
> It seems fairly handy and I've been in situations where I wanted to do
> something like that - in fact, I use factories to achieve something
> similar.
>
On Friday, November 26, 2010, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:25:32 -0000, Peter Lind wrote:
>
>
> It seems fairly handy and I've been in situations where I wanted to do
> something like that - in fact, I use factories to achieve something
> similar.
>
On 26 November 2010 21:37, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Peter Lind wrote:
>>
>> On 26 November 2010 20:36, Felipe Pena wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> > I'm here again to presents another proposal, which adds support for
>&g
On 26 November 2010 20:36, Felipe Pena wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm here again to presents another proposal, which adds support for
> instantiating a class and calling its methods and accessing its properties
> on same command.
>
> Example:
>
>
> class bar {
> public $x = 'PHP';
> }
>
> class foo exte
*snip*
Seems to me that some of this could be handled with a custom built
function wrapping
http://dk2.php.net/manual/en/function.get-defined-constants.php
Regards
Peter
--
WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk
LinkedIn: plind
BeWelcome/Couchsurfing: Fake51
Twitter: kafe15
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
On 30 October 2010 22:13, Chad Emrys wrote:
*snip*
>
> I actually know Etienne, he does spend some of his time fighting the good
> fight of supporting PHP :p. Anyway he has said the lemon parser project is
> going kind of slow as it is proving to be more difficult because some of the
> weirdnes
On 30 October 2010 19:18, Chad Emrys wrote:
> On 10/30/2010 11:58 AM, Daniel P. Brown wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:47, Chad Emrys wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's not that I'm that sure of myself, it's that I believe that my
>>> opinion
>>> has merit, and I keep seeing the exact same argument ov
On 30 October 2010 09:34, Chad Emrys wrote:
> On 10/30/2010 02:16 AM, Peter Lind wrote:
>>
>> On 30 October 2010 09:09, Mike Van Riel wrote:
>>
>> * snip *
>>
>>
>>>
>>> (additionally I wonder why people ask such a simple question o
On 30 October 2010 09:09, Mike Van Riel wrote:
* snip *
> (additionally I wonder why people ask such a simple question on IRC whilst
> googling provides your answer faster..)
Most of the people coming to ##php on freenode asking questions like
that have a hard time learning (on their own or at
Den 2010 10 30 03:51 skrev "Chad Emrys" :
* snip *
> What is in a name anyway?
There's something VERY ironic about a statement like that given what you're
asking for ...
Regards
Peter
On 8 June 2010 17:28, Brian Moon wrote:
>> The operator that really determines this is 'new' - which is already
>> documented. So there isn't any ambiguity. Not to say that documenting
>> the other operators would be bad, just saying there's no ambiguity
>> here :)
>> Also, allowing "new (blah())
On 8 June 2010 16:57, Ford, Mike wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jacob Oettinger [mailto:ja...@oettinger.dk]
>> Sent: 08 June 2010 14:09
>>
>> On 08/06/2010, at 12.41, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 12:23 +0200, Jacob Oettinger wrote:
>> >> Would it be equally
On 23 May 2010 07:52, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Saturday 22 May 2010 11:43:50 pm Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> At 01:01 23/05/2010, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>> >On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 22:39, Lukas Kahwe Smith
> wrote:
>> > > On 22.05.2010, at 18:30, Josh Davis wrote:
>> > >> As you wrote, you worked on
On 29 April 2010 15:42, mathieu.suen wrote:
> Steven Van Poeck wrote:
>>>
>>> Folks, can't you just accept that T_PAAMAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM is intended to
>>> make you smile? There's nothing to see here, please move along.
>>>
>>> - Martin
>>
>> +1
>>
> Don' t you read what I say?
I'd be surprised if
On 21 April 2010 11:46, Adi Nita wrote:
> I cannot agree with the idea of preferring
> working applications to good working applications.
Except that's not what's at stake. The application does not become one
bit better or worse by using an updated function that's more
consistent with other funct
t; {
>> return $this->$property;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> $foo = new Foo;
>> $foo->bar[3] = 1;
>>
>> var_dump($foo);
>>
>>
>> Now, I'm not really sure this is that bad, as there may be use cases wher
> I think there is a lot to say why is not working but just look at those
> 2 execution:
>
> 1st
> class A
> {
>
> public function __get($name)
> {
> $this->$name = array();
> return $this->$name;
> }
>
> public function te
95 matches
Mail list logo
