On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>At 08:20 AM 2/18/2004 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>>On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>>
>> >At 12:01 AM 2/18/2004 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>> >> >That's fine. I thought you meant to make register_list_destructors() call
>> >> >register_list_dest
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jani Taskinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: About bug #26753 and
zend_register_list_destructors()
> At 08:20 AM 2/18/2004 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> >On Wed,
At 08:20 AM 2/18/2004 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>At 12:01 AM 2/18/2004 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>> >That's fine. I thought you meant to make register_list_destructors() call
>> >register_list_destructors_ex().
>>
>> It seems that nuking is out of q
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>At 12:01 AM 2/18/2004 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>> >That's fine. I thought you meant to make register_list_destructors() call
>> >register_list_destructors_ex().
>>
>> It seems that nuking is out of question and not very good idea after
>> all. ;)
>
At 12:01 AM 2/18/2004 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>That's fine. I thought you meant to make register_list_destructors() call
>register_list_destructors_ex().
It seems that nuking is out of question and not very good idea after
all. ;)
Using zend_register_list_destructors() (or the macro,
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>At 11:36 AM 2/17/2004 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
>> >
>> >I don't understand. Why fix it in PHP 5 if you're suggesting to nuke the
>> >function? :)
>>
>> I was thinking backwards. Nevermind. So nuke in PHP5, fix in PHP4.
>
>Yeah I agree. We should c
At 11:36 AM 2/17/2004 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
>I don't understand. Why fix it in PHP 5 if you're suggesting to nuke the
>function? :)
I was thinking backwards. Nevermind. So nuke in PHP5, fix in PHP4.
Yeah I agree. We should commit the fix in PHP 4 and nuke in PHP 5.
>> And change
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>At 06:03 PM 2/16/2004 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>>On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>>
>> >It seems to me that the difference is in the dtor() callback's parameters.
>> >I'm not sure why type_name is not passed to
>> >zend_register_list_destructor
At 06:03 PM 2/16/2004 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>It seems to me that the difference is in the dtor() callback's parameters.
>I'm not sure why type_name is not passed to
>zend_register_list_destructors(). It probably did not exist when it was
>originally w
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>It seems to me that the difference is in the dtor() callback's parameters.
>I'm not sure why type_name is not passed to
>zend_register_list_destructors(). It probably did not exist when it was
>originally written.
Zeev might know? :)
>I guess we
At 09:25 AM 2/16/2004 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> It seems to me that the difference is in the dtor() callback's parameters.
> I'm not sure why type_name is not passed to
> zend_register_list_destructors(). It probably did not exist when it was
> origina
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> It seems to me that the difference is in the dtor() callback's parameters.
> I'm not sure why type_name is not passed to
> zend_register_list_destructors(). It probably did not exist when it was
> originally written.
> I guess we can either fix the compar
It seems to me that the difference is in the dtor() callback's parameters.
I'm not sure why type_name is not passed to
zend_register_list_destructors(). It probably did not exist when it was
originally written.
I guess we can either fix the comparison, change
zend_register_list_destructors() to
13 matches
Mail list logo
