On 07/23/10 20:06, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
I want to see strong arguments for not casting NULLs
into empty arrays:)
All simple types (non object/arrays) getting cast to an array will
become array($x)
-- Jille
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 21:34, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
>> This is plain false. PHP does care for BC a lot.
>
> OK. I will try to test PHP to help you guys in this. I know there is
> documentation but it often misses crucial subtle points and there is
> not a lot of education of the public to set exp
Hi!
In other words, how can I help best? If I try to run Drupal with a
daily build then I will chase all the build bugs constantly. If I tell
That'd be great. Giving special attention to RCs would also help - it's
much better to catch something before the release than people starting
to scre
> This is plain false. PHP does care for BC a lot.
OK. I will try to test PHP to help you guys in this. I know there is
documentation but it often misses crucial subtle points and there is
not a lot of education of the public to set expectations.
In other words, how can I help best? If I try to r
Hi!
If you treat ::$ as a single construct in your mind then you will get
classname::$foo() wrong. Of course the rule is that classname::.() is a
method call but it's less evident by just looking at the code.
It's really not that hard. It'd take you 1/100 of the time you are
wasting discu
Hm, a touch of civility. OK let me retry then.
So what I tried to say is this:
If you treat ::$ as a single construct in your mind then you will get
classname::$foo() wrong. Of course the rule is that classname::.() is a
method call but it's less evident by just looking at the code.
I have s
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> First:
> A personally answer is NOT "the list"
>
> Am 23.07.2010 17:27, schrieb Karoly Negyesi:
> >> Idiotic point of view, really there is no brain behind
> >
> > Really? so we are now down to personal attacks.
>
> Sorry but if you do not un
First:
A personally answer is NOT "the list"
Am 23.07.2010 17:27, schrieb Karoly Negyesi:
>> Idiotic point of view, really there is no brain behind
>
> Really? so we are now down to personal attacks.
Sorry but if you do not understand the first answer i have
to make it clear
> Now listen. *Eve
> Idiotic point of view, really there is no brain behind
Really? so we are now down to personal attacks. Now listen. *Every*
PHP version breaks backwards compatibility and we (I am one of the
lead Drupal developers) struggle with making Drupal compatible with
the subtle, often undocumented changes
On 07/23/2010 10:20 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Would you like to know what is really confusing?
mysql_escape_string
mysql_real_escape_string
So if you have nothing to do try to cleanup this
hint: "mysql_real_escape_string" never should have existed this way
and should be dprecated for some relaese
Am 23.07.2010 02:29, schrieb Karoly Negyesi:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Davey Shafik wrote:
>> You can call classname::$foo() and even $obj->$foo() with call_user_func()
>> should we get rid of those too?
>
> Absolutely not.
Idiotic point of view, really there is no brain behind
If you
2010/7/23 Karoly Negyesi :
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Joel Perras wrote:
>> What's confusing about it? Each expression means something very
>> different and distinct.
>>
>> I use $foo(), new $foo(), classname::$foo, classname::$foo(),
>> $bar::$foo, $bar::$foo(), etc. on a regular basis, a
On 2010-07-22, at 8:49 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
> So you do not consider it utterly confusing that
No. I know kung-fu.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi!
classname::$foo
classname::$foo()
mean two completely different things? The first reads a property the
And classname::foo and classname::foo() means two different things too.
So what? Language has its rules, learn them. It's not that hard.
If you nuke variable function calls and method
On 23/Jul/10 1:54 AM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
Hi,
Given that call_user_func exists I would recommend to remove $foo()
from PHP Next.
Observe the "logic" in the following examples:
$foo();
new $foo();
classname::$foo;
classname::$foo();
How about:
$lambda = function () {};
$lambda();
What sh
On 2010-07-23, at 2:49 AM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
>
> So you do not consider it utterly confusing that
>
> classname::$foo
> classname::$foo()
>
> mean two completely different things? The first reads a property the
> second reads a local variable. Any time you need to backtrack when you
> the so
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Joel Perras wrote:
> What's confusing about it? Each expression means something very
> different and distinct.
>
> I use $foo(), new $foo(), classname::$foo, classname::$foo(),
> $bar::$foo, $bar::$foo(), etc. on a regular basis, and it can make for
> some very ele
What's confusing about it? Each expression means something very
different and distinct.
I use $foo(), new $foo(), classname::$foo, classname::$foo(),
$bar::$foo, $bar::$foo(), etc. on a regular basis, and it can make for
some very elegant, concise and readable code.
Moreover, this really isn't so
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Davey Shafik wrote:
> You can call classname::$foo() and even $obj->$foo() with call_user_func(),
> should we get rid of those too?
Absolutely not.
> I grant you that variable function calls are sometimes confusing, lambda
> functions are a better way to do it
You can call classname::$foo() and even $obj->$foo() with call_user_func(),
should we get rid of those too?
I grant you that variable function calls are sometimes confusing, lambda
functions are a better way to do it perhaps, but just because something can be
abused, doesn't mean it should be r
Am 23.07.2010 01:36, schrieb Karoly Negyesi:
>> public function __get($subclass)
>> {
>> $include_file = CONTENTLOUNGE_BASEDIR . 'api_' . $subclass . '.php';
>> $class_name = 'cl_' . $subclass;
>> $this->$subclass = new $class_name();
>> return $this->$subclass;
>> }
>
> And this code contai
> public function __get($subclass)
> {
> $include_file = CONTENTLOUNGE_BASEDIR . 'api_' . $subclass . '.php';
> $class_name = 'cl_' . $subclass;
> $this->$subclass = new $class_name();
> return $this->$subclass;
> }
And this code contains no variable function call. You mixed it up with
a var
Why will you kill the following pretty working code to load
classes if they needed and use only $cl_api->subclass->method()
in the whole application?
The whole implementation is little complexer, if file does not exist
it looks if the file "modules/$subclass/api$subclass" exists and
do the same, s
Hi,
Given that call_user_func exists I would recommend to remove $foo()
from PHP Next.
Observe the "logic" in the following examples:
$foo();
new $foo();
classname::$foo;
classname::$foo();
There is a word for this and that word is madness.
The simplest is to nuke $foo(). call_user_func() is a
24 matches
Mail list logo
