Lukas Smith wrote:
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello internals,
before we rush into another version, how about clearing some open
issues
that were explicitly relayed from 5.0 to 5.1.
I would like to highlight again that getting the pear installer version
1.4 will also be important. getting this into
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello internals,
before we rush into another version, how about clearing some open issues
that were explicitly relayed from 5.0 to 5.1.
I would like to highlight again that getting the pear installer version
1.4 will also be important. getting this into php 5.1 will improve
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Ron Korving wrote:
is multiple inheritence something we might see appearing in 5.2 ?
The concept of Multiple Inheritance should be left to programming
languages that can properly deal with it (by letting the programmer
influence how inheritance collision can be resolve
Ron Korving wrote:
> is multiple inheritence something we might see appearing in 5.2 ?
The concept of Multiple Inheritance should be left to programming
languages that can properly deal with it (by letting the programmer
influence how inheritance collision can be resolved, for instance).
Mult
On Feb 17, 2005, at 2:55 PM, Jason Garber wrote:
Hello,
Speaking of these matters, how about implementing functions within
interfaces?
That is by definition impossible. Instead of being an interface, it
would be an implementation.
-ryan
--
Best regards,
Jasonmail
"Ron Korving" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> So why is this such a big "no"? Implementation problem or is it against a
> certain PHP philosophy?
Just do a google search on the cons of MI (narrow it to C++ if you please).
it's much more a philosophical issue, altho
Hello,
Speaking of these matters, how about implementing functions within
interfaces?
--
Best regards,
Jasonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thursday, February 17, 2005, 5:46:08 PM, you wrote:
RK> Okay, I'll accept the "no" of course, but I am curious.. Is it an
RK> im
Okay, I'll accept the "no" of course, but I am curious.. Is it an
implementation problem with the current engine? Saying that using interfaces
discards the MI issue is nonsense imho, because I can't implement any
functions in an interface.
So why is this such a big "no"? Implementation problem or
Hello Ron,
Thursday, February 17, 2005, 11:10:55 PM, you wrote:
> A little offtopic, but I'm still curious.. is multiple inheritence something
> we might see appearing in 5.2 ?
Definitively not.
You may raise this question prior to PHP 6,
However still getting the answer 'no'.
The concept simply
Nope. Interfaces is supported as an alternative approach to MI.
Andi
At 11:10 PM 2/17/2005 +0100, Ron Korving wrote:
A little offtopic, but I'm still curious.. is multiple inheritence something
we might see appearing in 5.2 ?
Ron
"Marcus Boerger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PRO
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Ron Korving wrote:
> A little offtopic, but I'm still curious.. is multiple inheritence something
> we might see appearing in 5.2 ?
No.
-adam
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.trachtenberg.com
author of o'reilly's "upgrading to php 5" and "php cookbook"
avoid the holiday r
A little offtopic, but I'm still curious.. is multiple inheritence something
we might see appearing in 5.2 ?
Ron
"Marcus Boerger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hello internals,
>
> before we rush into another version, how about clearing some open issues
> that we
You're absolutely right... It should've said "notemptyor" :) Very perceptive
;)
Ron
"Christian Schneider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ron Korving wrote:
> > $foo = emptyor($foo, "bar");
>
> I'm not really sure that you'd use this for. Set $foo to either the
> ori
Ron Korving wrote:
$foo = emptyor($foo, "bar");
I'm not really sure that you'd use this for. Set $foo to either the
original value (if $foo was empty before) or "bar"? Is that empty as in
empty()? So you could end up with null, "", 0, "0", false or "bar"?
- Chris
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime D
Marcus,
a minor but important issue (to me, at least) is the consistent use of
SPL exceptions throughout OOP based extensions...
"Marcus Boerger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hello internals,
>
> before we rush into another version, how about clearing some o
> 4) php 5.1 is aiming to increase performance and security => ifsetor
>
> It is nice and easy and fast...only it's name. Well guys come on that's
> the stupiest reason to reject. The name is selfspeaking, you're all only
> not so used to its name as you are with foreach for now.
I really lo
16 matches
Mail list logo
