Hello Christian,
I have put your proposal as a link to a PHP GSoC 2008 idea here:
http://wiki.php.net/gsoc/2008
Feel invited to add to this idea in whatever way you want :-)
marcus
Saturday, December 22, 2007, 4:08:04 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> I was following this thread and came upon Jeff's p
2007/12/22, Christian Seiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was following this thread and came upon Jeff's posting on how closures
> could be implemented in PHP.
>
> Since I would find the feature to be EXTREMELY useful, I decided to
> actually implement it more or less the way Jeff proposed. S
2007/12/22, Christian Seiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> PPS: Oh, yeah, if it should be legally necessary, I grant the right to
> anybody to use this patch under any OSI certified license you may want
> to choose.
>
>
That's very kind of you but, if I was explained right, you don't have
copyright on
I have another observation about names.
Instead of using an arbitrary name, as the name of the function,
wouldn't it be possible to let the name be derived from the
function-body. Eg., if you took the function-body's tokens and created
a hash from them. This would have two implications: 1) Multiple
One question about the names you generate for the function table in
combination with opcode caches.
Let's assume I have APC installed, and do the following:
foo.php:
$foo = function() {
echo "foo";
}
bar.php:
include('foo.php');
All works fine, and cached versions of both files would be c
Hi,
I was following this thread and came upon Jeff's posting on how closures
could be implemented in PHP.
Since I would find the feature to be EXTREMELY useful, I decided to
actually implement it more or less the way Jeff proposed. So, here's the
patch (against PHP_5_3, I can write one against HE
