Thanks all for the responses!
I agree that it isnt a core functionallity, but it would be nice to have it
always there to use.
thank you for thinking its a good idea guys!
2015-10-10 17:22 GMT-03:00 Johannes Schlüter :
> On Thu, 2015-10-08 at 12:05 -0300, Mattias Gonzalez wrote:
> > I wanted t
On Thu, 2015-10-08 at 12:05 -0300, Mattias Gonzalez wrote:
> I wanted to propose the "var_die($var)" functionallity.
This can easily be done in userland. There is no relevant performance
gain. I see no reason to add this to core.
Having this in your userland library has the benefit that you can d
I think this is the most awesomest fantastical idea since sliced bread.
+~0
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Mattias Gonzalez wrote:
> I wanted to propose the "var_die($var)" functionallity.
> My mates and i use a lot var_dump($var);die;
>
> Since die() wont print an array just a string, i thin
I agree with Ben on this, I personally use var_dump();exit; in my code a
lot, but there's no reason this needs to be in the core and not in userland:
function dd(...$args) {
var_dump(...$args);
exit;
}
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:24 PM Kris Childress wrote:
> Mattias,
>
> As an avid user o
Mattias,
As an avid user of var_dump($something); die(); I think this is a *fabulous*
idea!
Laravel has a good idea with dd(), I would like to see something that is
quick and easy to type, that we can throw anything at.. Maybe something
similar (basic example) to the following :
function dd($
If you and your friends use that a lot, how about you just define a
function for it in userland? There's absolutely no logical reason to
have this in core.
function var_die($value) { var_dump($value); exit; }
On 08.10.2015 17:05, Mattias Gonzalez wrote:
I wanted to propose the "var_die($var)"
I wanted to propose the "var_die($var)" functionallity.
My mates and i use a lot var_dump($var);die;
Since die() wont print an array just a string, i think it´ll be very useful.
It should do the var_dump($var);and die();
what do you think?
Hello,
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> On 24.01.2009, at 19:19, Guilherme Blanco wrote:
>
>> Hi Oskar,
>>
>> Yes, you can use a plain array too.
>> I was just giving you a normal approach (ArrayAccess inherited class)
>> because you may want a special behavior under
On 24.01.2009, at 19:19, Guilherme Blanco wrote:
Hi Oskar,
Yes, you can use a plain array too.
I was just giving you a normal approach (ArrayAccess inherited class)
because you may want a special behavior under it too.
Forget SplObjectStorage docs they're outdated read the
source! =
Hi Oskar,
Yes, you can use a plain array too.
I was just giving you a normal approach (ArrayAccess inherited class)
because you may want a special behavior under it too.
Forget SplObjectStorage docs they're outdated read the source! =)
Undoubtely devs will not mark spl_object_hash a E_DE
Hello Guilherme
The new implementation of spl_object_hash will solve it, since it's a
faster implementation than the old one.
Just one hint, you should not try to echo the generated hash, since it
may have non-printable chars.
I don't think that will be a problem...
Also, your code may stil
Oskar,
The new implementation of spl_object_hash will solve it, since it's a
faster implementation than the old one.
Just one hint, you should not try to echo the generated hash, since it
may have non-printable chars.
Also, your code may still be possible to use SplObjectStorage.
Etienne did a lo
Hello
My usage for spl_object_id wouldn't be solved with SplObjectStorage,
here is my current event handler (it uses spl_object_hash)
I still have the plan to replace it with something better but it simply works,
currently it's not possible to "free" an object.
EVENT::register accepts a static c
Hello,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Guilherme Blanco
> wrote:
>> Etienne,
>>
>> We all already considered to not implement spl_object_id as long as
>> spl_object_hash is optimized.
>
> Ok then, I'll provide a patch to improv
Roman Borschel schrieb:
> Would you mind sharing (off-list) how you get data in and out of the
> objects **transparently**
Have a look at lp:php-object-freezer.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 686
My personal favorite use of Reflection is Class Factories. While this
could be done with:
It seems a little blunt to me, it also doesn't support having a
variable number of arguments to the constructor. I've seen some
pretty egregious hacks to make the above code work with a variable
number of
On Jan 21, 2009, at 4:20 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
seems to me that many of the new requests coming in, including my own
stupid ones are because people want to build fast decent orm's in
php -
Having built an ORM system myself I can say that you don't need
Reflecti
Christian Schneider wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
seems to me that many of the new requests coming in, including my own
stupid ones are because people want to build fast decent orm's in php -
Having built an ORM system myself I can say that you don't need
Reflection (or even other fancy features
Nathan Rixham wrote:
> seems to me that many of the new requests coming in, including my own
> stupid ones are because people want to build fast decent orm's in php -
Having built an ORM system myself I can say that you don't need
Reflection (or even other fancy features not yet in PHP) for this.
First: I'd understand, I've to build the caching system on my own;
Second: I'd vote for speeding up Reflection.
Thanks,
--
(c) Kenan Sulayman
Freelance Designer and Programmer
Life's Live Poetry
2009/1/21 Nathan Rixham
> Christian Schneider wrote:
>
>> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On 21.01.
Christian Schneider wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 21.01.2009, at 12:00, Karsten Dambekalns wrote:
On 21.01.2009 11:44 Uhr, Kenan R Sulayman wrote:
I did propose the function because the construction in user-land is
quite
expensive;
Reflection is expensive, indeed. The way we solved it f
Christian Schneider schrieb:
> Yes, please. Keep clutter out of the engine especially for stuff which
> should not be used often. If you are relying on Reflection to be fast
> for you everyday code then you're IMHO doing something weird and it is
> ok that you have to write your own caching for it
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> On 21.01.2009, at 12:00, Karsten Dambekalns wrote:
>
>> On 21.01.2009 11:44 Uhr, Kenan R Sulayman wrote:
>>> I did propose the function because the construction in user-land is
>>> quite
>>> expensive;
>>
>> Reflection is expensive, indeed. The way we solved it for FLOW3
On 21.01.2009, at 12:00, Karsten Dambekalns wrote:
Hi.
On 21.01.2009 11:44 Uhr, Kenan R Sulayman wrote:
I did propose the function because the construction in user-land is
quite
expensive;
Reflection is expensive, indeed. The way we solved it for FLOW3 is
to create a ReflectionService t
Hi.
On 21.01.2009 11:44 Uhr, Kenan R Sulayman wrote:
I did propose the function because the construction in user-land is quite
expensive;
Reflection is expensive, indeed. The way we solved it for FLOW3 is to
create a ReflectionService that caches such information as long as the
source doesn'
Thanks,
I did propose the function because the construction in user-land is quite
expensive;
Actually tests showed: the user-land algorithm of mapping these objects
(regarding a count of thousand; up to a half million objects / iterations)
took 0,2 - 70 seconds to execute!
Therefore: I would be v
setAcessible() is the way to go!
Doctrine 2.0 took advantage of it to be able to move to a completely
VO mapping of models. =)
Cheers,
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 5:43 AM, Sebastian Bergmann
wrote:
> Etienne Kneuss schrieb:
>> Why can't you use Reflection in this case? It looks like you can quite
>
Etienne Kneuss schrieb:
> Why can't you use Reflection in this case? It looks like you can quite
> easily implement that in userland from Reflection.
Especially using setAcessible() which was added in PHP 5.3.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Ke
Hello,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Kenan R Sulayman
wrote:
> Hi,
> I'd like to propose a new function: spl_class_vars / params / contents.
>
> Notice: I haven't figured out a name yet Please help me find one.. :-)
>
> The function returns an array of the contents of the given class-object.
Hi,
I'd like to propose a new function: spl_class_vars / params / contents.
Notice: I haven't figured out a name yet Please help me find one.. :-)
The function returns an array of the contents of the given class-object.
The class-object parameter may be text or rather directly the object ( new
f
Hello,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Guilherme Blanco
wrote:
> Etienne,
>
> We all already considered to not implement spl_object_id as long as
> spl_object_hash is optimized.
Ok then, I'll provide a patch to improve spl_object_hash's
performance, which will also change it's output.
Documenta
Etienne,
We all already considered to not implement spl_object_id as long as
spl_object_hash is optimized.
Regards,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Hannes Magnusson
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 13:26, Etienne Kneuss
Hello,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Guilherme Blanco
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems SplObjectStorage will solve my issue.
> We already spoke on pvt about how to handle things correctly too.
>
> Although this solve my issue, the point that Stan highlighted is
> valid. You may not find a good place
Hello,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Hannes Magnusson
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 13:26, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
>>
>> Could you please provide an example, with code, in which this function
>> would be necessary ? (i.e. where you can't use SplObjeccctStorage)
>
> Why?
>
> As far as i under
Hi,
It seems SplObjectStorage will solve my issue.
We already spoke on pvt about how to handle things correctly too.
Although this solve my issue, the point that Stan highlighted is
valid. You may not find a good place where to use it, but
spl_object_hash is there and it has drawbacks. Just namin
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 13:26, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
>
> Could you please provide an example, with code, in which this function
> would be necessary ? (i.e. where you can't use SplObjeccctStorage)
Why?
As far as i understand, the issue is that spl_object_hash() is slow
and people want a faster a
Hello,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Stan Vassilev | FM
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I had a talk with Marcus, and he has agreed on this proposed solution:
>
> 1) SPL generates a pseudo-random session id/mask (for the current request,
> do not confuse with $_SESSION), which consists of 32 random
> byte
Hi,
I had a talk with Marcus, and he has agreed on this proposed solution:
1) SPL generates a pseudo-random session id/mask (for the current request,
do not confuse with $_SESSION), which consists of 32 random
bytes/characters.
2) The object is and the handler pointer are used to create a uni
Hello,
We already had that discussion in private, but here is a on-list summary:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Guilherme Blanco
wrote:
> Ok,
>
> We'll use this method inside Doctrine ORM version 2.0, scheduled to be
> released on September 1st, 2009.
>
> One main location where we are already
Ok,
We'll use this method inside Doctrine ORM version 2.0, scheduled to be
released on September 1st, 2009.
One main location where we are already using it is during Hydration process.
The process of grab a DB tuple and convert it into an Object graph.
Here is the usage.
Each Object of the graph
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
Hi Andi,
Am Mittwoch, den 17.12.2008, 10:33 -0800 schrieb Andi Gutmans:
> Shouldn't you be using RETURN_STRINGL with length and dup=0?
Yes, the more recent implementation does exactly that :)
cu, Lars
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
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 that Marcus controls the commit access to SPL. So I'm turning
>> the conversatio
Shouldn't you be using RETURN_STRINGL with length and dup=0?
Andi
> -Original Message-
> From: Guilherme Blanco [mailto:guilhermebla...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:31 AM
> To: internals Mailing List
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] New function proposal: s
Hi Guilherme,
thanks for moving the discussion to the list.
Am Mittwoch, den 17.12.2008, 15:31 -0200 schrieb Guilherme Blanco:
[...]
> It seems that Marcus controls the commit access to SPL. So I'm turning
> the conversation async, since I cannot find him online at IRC.
> So, can anyone review th
Hi,
I spoke with some devs yesterday about spl_object_hash performance and
alternatives to solve it.
Seems that md5 applied inside it is the responsable for that.
After some tips from Lars, we came with a patch (at the bottom of this email).
The new proposed function is already being used in Doct
_
ALAPLAYA.COM
http://www.alaplaya.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Rasmus Lerdorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Juan Alonso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 12:31
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
on Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 02:43:57PM +0100, Petras Kudaras wrote:
> Shouldn't that go into separate module (available from PEAR) or something?
> Sticking as many things into the core as possible seems to be the reason
> a lot of people don't like PHP ;)
I don't know wh
James Devenish wrote:
$url .= strstr($url,'?')?"?foo=$foo":"&foo=$foo";
Without wanting to make any comment about the merits of the proposed
function, I would have thought there would be merit in having a set of
generalised URL-manipulation functions (if someone wanted to write them,
that is
At 07:53 PM 1/21/2004 +0800, James Devenish wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
on Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:31:08AM -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > $url = urlappendvar($_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER'], 'foo', $foo);
>
> Generally we don't add functions to replace simple one-line PHP
> expressions.
>
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
on Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:31:08AM -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > $url = urlappendvar($_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER'], 'foo', $foo);
>
> Generally we don't add functions to replace simple one-line PHP
> expressions.
>
> $url .= strstr($url,'?')?"?foo=$foo":"&foo=$foo"
Generally we don't add functions to replace simple one-line PHP
expressions.
$url .= strstr($url,'?')?"?foo=$foo":"&foo=$foo";
-Rasmus
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Juan Alonso wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I find often myself wanting to append a variable to an unknown url. The
> problem is that you don
Hello list,
I find often myself wanting to append a variable to an unknown url. The
problem is that you don't know if you should append the var with ? or
with &. Do you think it would be useful to have a builtin function that
would do this automatically?
example code as I do it actually:
exam
53 matches
Mail list logo
