Hi,
maybe you guys are tired of namespace and G*** discussions, so I'd like to
announce some ideas and toughts about the PDM notes:
> 2.13 Case sensitivity of identifiers
Maybe this could throw some E_STRICT deprecated warning and PHP7 goes
completely case sensitive.
> 5.7 Using an undefined pr
Hello Sara,
Sunday, November 27, 2005, 3:39:40 AM, you wrote:
>> How PHP chokes on > silly. There's a patch here to fix it,
>> http://news.php.net/php.internals/18493, some proof of why it's a problem,
>> http://news.php.net/php.internals/18496, and the "bogus" (yeah, right) bug
>> report, http:
How PHP chokes on http://news.php.net/php.internals/18493, some proof of why it's a problem,
http://news.php.net/php.internals/18496, and the "bogus" (yeah, right) bug
report, http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=25987.
As the author of the patch you mentioned, I should reitterate that I don't
think t
Hi Edin, et al:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:59:16PM +0100, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
>
> PHP
> will produce parse error if you have short tags enabled when trying to
> parse xml, while with short tags disabled and asp tags enabled it parses
> them just fine which makes it sweet for making templating
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Stefan Walk wrote:
Exactly. PHP chokes on
And just because of that we're removing those too. >:)
--Jani
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 23/11/05, Edin Kadribasic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marcus Boerger wrote:
> > Hello Stefan,
> >
> >"<%=" is of course also conflicting the XML specs since "<"
> > must be followed by a "!" is we are in a DTD context. Or a "?"
> > to start a processing instruction or a valid element name.
Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Stefan,
>
>"<%=" is of course also conflicting the XML specs since "<"
> must be followed by a "!" is we are in a DTD context. Or a "?"
> to start a processing instruction or a valid element name. And
> "%" cannot start an element name.
When we are talking about
Hello Jochem,
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 6:52:17 PM, you wrote:
> Christian Schneider wrote:
>> Jochem Maas wrote:
>>
>>> so I can only assume that the ability to declare ctor signatures have
>>> been left in because they do no harm regardless of whether it is
>>> 'correct'.
>>
>>
>> If I
Hello Stefan,
"<%=" is of course also conflicting the XML specs since "<"
must be followed by a "!" is we are in a DTD context. Or a "?"
to start a processing instruction or a valid element name. And
"%" cannot start an element name.
marcus
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 5:07:22 PM, you wrote:
Christian Schneider wrote:
Jochem Maas wrote:
so I can only assume that the ability to declare ctor signatures have
been left in because they do no harm regardless of whether it is
'correct'.
If I remember correctly then one reason to have constructor signatures
is for object factories: Yo
> Anyway, I see only one use case for interface constructors:
...
I also thought about that:
$whichClass = ...
if ($whichClass instanceof ISomehowConstructable)
$foo = new $whichClass(...);
would even work without reflection, but of coure would require to change
instanceof a little, too
Christian Schneider wrote:
abstract static protected function __construct(CrazySettings $s,
CrazyView $v);
Static doesn't really make sense as interfaces as object instance related.
Well actually the constructor is implicitly a static function too. The
whole allowing/disallowing constru
Jochem Maas wrote:
so I can only assume that the ability to declare ctor signatures have
been left in because they do no harm regardless of whether it is
'correct'.
If I remember correctly then one reason to have constructor signatures
is for object factories: You specify that an object to be
On 22/11/05, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello folks!
>
> On 11 and 12 November a bunch of us had a developers meeting in Paris,
> discussing the things we want to do for PHP 6. Partly because of the
> Unicode support, but we also discussed the items on "Rasmus' wishlist"
> and a lo
Note: this post contains a 'complaint' but its not aimed
at any one in particular, especially not Rasmus as he doesn't give
the impression of being much of an OO proponent at heart, and because
he repeatly seems to err on the side of practicality and caution
(as opposed to correctness for correctn
I think that automatic __toString calling for (string)$obj,
$obj.'somestring' and so on is urgent compared to other features and
should be available in 5.1.1 or at latest - 5.2.0. I suppose that
"object #XX" is not useful for anyone programming in PHP.
On 22/11/05, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Hello Bob,
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 1:44:53 AM, you wrote:
> 5.4 Late static binding using "this" without "$" (or perhaps with a
> different name)
> The same example, but now with the call to "self::static2()" replaced with
> "static::static2()", will then print "B::static2".
> Using stat
le of the section indicates it was the first preference.
Thanks
Bob Silva
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 2:45 PM
> To: Matthias Pigulla
> Cc: internals
> Subject: Re: AW: [PHP-DEV] PDM Meeting No
Hello Matthias,
Tuesday, November 22, 2005, 10:29:09 PM, you wrote:
>> I don't see why you can't specify that a class definition must have a
>> constructor. Obviously the constructor is not for the
>> interface itself.
> Ok, that is, having __construct in the interface asserts that everything
Hello Matthias,
Tuesday, November 22, 2005, 9:22:16 PM, you wrote:
>> 2.10 Dynamic class inheritance
> Can someone elaborate a little on what this is supposed to be ;)?
Binding static members at run time rather than compile time. See the notes
for an example that shows the difference. Usage exa
> I don't see why you can't specify that a class definition must have a
> constructor. Obviously the constructor is not for the
> interface itself.
Ok, that is, having __construct in the interface asserts that everything
you get passed (as an implementation of the interface) has been
constructe
Matthias Pigulla wrote:
Now that was a quick reply :)
Also known as runtime inheritance, or late binding. It's not a new
thing, we have it today. The discussion was about whether to
have a way
...
That is, one can write
if (...) class A extends X {} else class A extends Y {}
right now?
Now that was a quick reply :)
> Also known as runtime inheritance, or late binding. It's not a new
> thing, we have it today. The discussion was about whether to
> have a way
...
That is, one can write
if (...) class A extends X {} else class A extends Y {}
right now? Seriously ;)?
Every
Matthias Pigulla wrote:
2.10 Dynamic class inheritance
Can someone elaborate a little on what this is supposed to be ;)?
Also known as runtime inheritance, or late binding. It's not a new
thing, we have it today. The discussion was about whether to have a way
to disable this and force peo
Great, I have been waiting for this list sine Derick mentioned the
meeting in his talk at the conference :)
@Derick: There have been some questions and issues raised during your
talk... Dou you remember them? It was about reading from files with the
new unicode semantics, and you said these were s
Hello folks!
On 11 and 12 November a bunch of us had a developers meeting in Paris,
discussing the things we want to do for PHP 6. Partly because of the
Unicode support, but we also discussed the items on "Rasmus' wishlist"
and a lot of other items. I made a report of the discussions we had and
26 matches
Mail list logo
