On 8/17/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > True, but the result is the same. The new functions/classes can't be
> > used (only some rare additions can be efficiently emulated in user
> > land).
>
> Yes, but you still have option of working around it. Right now we don't
> have an
True, but the result is the same. The new functions/classes can't be
used (only some rare additions can be efficiently emulated in user
land).
Yes, but you still have option of working around it. Right now we don't
have an option to work around new syntax. I hate to rain on your parade,
becaus
On 8/17/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see a difference between a "fatal error call to undefined
> > function" and or a parse error. It can go without problem in 5.3.
>
> Ah, there is a difference - you can do function_exists to check for a
> function, but you can do
I don't see a difference between a "fatal error call to undefined
function" and or a parse error. It can go without problem in 5.3.
Ah, there is a difference - you can do function_exists to check for a
function, but you can do nothing if your file doesn't parse.
<<< was never obvious, there
On 8/16/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I didn't get any further, no :(. The decision of whether to merge the
> > nowdocs patch is out of my hands now, since I don't have source karma.
> > However, since the main thing standing in the way of its implementation
> > was concern
I didn't get any further, no :(. The decision of whether to merge the
nowdocs patch is out of my hands now, since I don't have source karma.
However, since the main thing standing in the way of its implementation
was concern over the usefulness, your comment is very helpful, and I'd
like to ope
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Gwynne Raskind wrote:
> I didn't get any further, no :(. The decision of whether to merge the nowdocs
> patch is out of my hands now, since I don't have source karma. However, since
> the main thing standing in the way of its implementation was concern over the
> usefulness, y
On 16/08/07, Gwynne Raskind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2007, at 2:00 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:
> > Did you get any further with merging this? It would help users of
> > the XQuery language.
> >
> > If I understand your intent, I would be able to change the code
> > fragment
> > bel
On Aug 15, 2007, at 2:00 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:
Did you get any further with merging this? It would help users of
the XQuery language.
If I understand your intent, I would be able to change the code
fragment
below to use a nowdoc, and not have to escape the XQuery $i variables.
Chris
I've taken my original nowdocs patch and revamped it to be much more
efficient and functional. This version:
- Parses nowdocs as constant strings rather than ADD_STRING opcodes.
- Allows the flex scanner do less work.
- Enables nowdocs to be used in static_scalar contexts, such as class
const
10 matches
Mail list logo
