Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Stut wrote:
It may not be clear to some people, but there are many things in the
every language that aren't necessarily obvious and I don't think that's
a reason not to implement something.
I think that is one of the strongest reasons not to implement som
I need
more than 10 fingers and 10 toes to count how many source files I have
that contain long sections where each line contains multiple references
to the same object.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Stut wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf:
Consider very common (abbreviated) code like this:
$user_data = $_REQUEST['data'];
switch($output_format) {
Question: where is the output format feature documented?
Once
7;s unreasonable to require scripts outputting content
other than HTML to include a line that modifies the default behaviour.
Surely the benefits far outweigh that cost.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
LAUPRETRE François (P) wrote:
From: Stut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This would need to come from the user implementation of __autoload
through naming conventions or a lookup table. PHP does not
get involved
with resolving a type to a filename, and rightly so.
The question is not to have PHP
ice, but it can't know if it's looking for
interface or class. Both are possible.
This would need to come from the user implementation of __autoload
through naming conventions or a lookup table. PHP does not get involved
with resolving a type to a filename, and rightly so.
-Stut
--
e has to be the most
idiotic attitude I've ever come across.
-Stut
BuildSmart wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2007, at 09:02:23, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Dear Mr BuildSmart
BuildSmart wrote:
SInce I didn't consider it a bug but rather a minor erro
addslashes() on each input element you wish to send to a
database.
As far as I was aware addslashes is inadequate for this purpose. Should
this not point people to use database-specific escaping functions rather
than addslashes?
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
opinion is that it's slower. I'd be interested in any material
you have to back up that statement.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
ties etc within an extension. Is there any
documentation on this? If not, can someone point me in the right direction?
Buy the book: Extending and Embedding PHP by Sara Goleman.
It covers classes and a whole lot more. Required reading for anyone
developing PHP extensions.
-Stut
--
http://st
trying to make
headway with the source, it just looks right (parameters are separated
by a comma not a space).
Because those macros may be defined as empty, meaning you'd be trying to
compile...
php_myextension_globals_ctor(&myextension_globals , );
...which the compiler is not gonna
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 21:11 +0100, Stut wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
The session store is just a session store. It is not a
login/authentication mechanism and thus doesn't have any of the
protections you might want to add to that. Theref
rst sent
it to, which was the core of my question.
The answer seems to be that you can't do it reliably.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
argument
I'm making on PHP-General, but that's really a secondary goal ;)
Cheers.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi all,
Just wanted to get your opinion on a discussion currently going on on
the general list.
Why does the PHP session extension not use something like the user agent
to validate that a session ID has not been hijacked? Or is this
something that just hasn't been implemented yet?
e been reported correctly and against the right
category/project. At least then you can get an accurate picture from the
bug list.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
...
I agree, but I do like the tags dropped but retain support for easier to read, i.e. against .
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
app and forget.
Yeah, one setting in php.ini against any number of tags in any number of
scripts. Now that's what I call a reasoned argument.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
d I have to say that I don't think
that's too much information for a mail header, and it's exactly what
would be needed.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On 13-Dec-06, at 5:12 PM, Stut wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Is there any interest in adding support for logging of mail() calls
and/or adding options that allow identification of who sent the e-mail.
I've wrote a quick patch that enables this functionality vi
risk?
IMHO it would be better to have an option that would provide the domain
name and the filename relative to the site root (if available).
Also, I'm assuming this is configurable via php_flag in an Apache
configuration file?
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing Li
uch, but I believe you need to cast attributes coming
out of SimpleXML, in this case probably to an int.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
on this list for several years
and the "attitude" has not changed much in that time but PHP is still
going strong. Considering what they have achieved using that attitude I
would think twice before criticising it.
Bit of a ramble, sorry about that. Hopefully this won't be taken as a
flame
g now.
Sara: I have ordered your book, but this couldn't wait until it arrives.
Thanks again.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
_EXTENSION(mmsr, mmsr.c "$PHP_MMSR/MMSR/mmsr_bridge.cpp",
$ext_shared)
PHP_REQUIRE_CXX()
fi
I had expected the PHP_REQUIRE_CXX() macro to trigger a change to the
link command, but it does not seem to have done anything beyond
influencing what is used to compile the extension itself.
PHP 5.1.4.
On the first request everything is fine, but on a refresh all the
superglobals are empty. Turning off auto_globals_jit fixes it, as does
disabling the Zend Platform. Dunno if that helps you or not.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit
_(ENABLE|WITH)\([^;]+\);)", "gm");
>
> will prevent this from happening. This change will require the ARG_ to
> start a the begining of the line.
No need for such a requirement. I don't know whether the JS regex is
PCRE or not, but I believe something like this will solve
e option to download and configure others if needed.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I've just started developing a new extension, checked out the latest
source and found this snafu. I assume it's a typo.
-Stut
Index: phpize.in
===
RCS file: /repository/php-src/scripts/phpize.in,v
retrieving revision 1.32
aviour, but I'm not
experienced enough to know the implementation implications. It would
certainly need an INI flag to enable/disable it but I would suggest that
it be enabled by default.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
7;ve created a small test extension using
MODULE_GLOBALS the results of which suggest that these variables are per
process. I'm just looking for some confirmation that shared memory is
the way to go before I jump down that particular black hole.
TIA.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runti
As far as I can tell it is using the prefork MPM since I believe this
is the default option for building it with the FreeBSD port. How can I
tell for sure?
Thanks.
-Stut
On 17/12/05, Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You need to use the prefork MPM wi
will fail,
but I can use system and passthru without any issues. I'm fairly
certain it's not related to Apache2.
-Stut
On 17/12/05, Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You need to use the prefork MPM within Apache2.
> Rebuilding apache like tha
eived.
FYI: Environment is FreeBSD 5.2, Apache 2.0 and Postfix.
Cheers.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
34 matches
Mail list logo
