(trying again without attachments)
Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Another reminder, I'd like to roll RC1 on Monday. Everyone will be back from
OSCON and we can start the Unicode merge right afterwards.
currently phpize just copies the php-src Makefile.global to
extensions, i have a patch ready for makin
Hi,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/install/php-5.0.0RC1# ./configure
> --with-apxs2=/usr/local/apache/bin/apxs --with-mysql=/usr/local/mysql4
> --with-mysqli=/usr/local/mysql4_1/bin/mysql_config
> --with-pgsql=/usr/local/pgsql --disable-libxml
using two different mysql libraries will not work of course. Yo
Clemens Gutweiler wrote:
> Change the name of 'test' to 'test2', so that this isn't anymore an
> construcor - then the E_STRICT message appears. Bug?
Damn those stupid BC-constructor-names :)
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/
Das B
At 11:00 AM 3/19/2004 +0100, Clemens Gutweiler wrote:
> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
>
> > Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > > Only if you use E_STRICT.
> >
> > Am I missing something (bear with me, I am still on
> medication :-) but
> >
> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
>
> > Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > > Only if you use E_STRICT.
> >
> > Am I missing something (bear with me, I am still on
> medication :-) but
> > the following code does not print a warning here:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > Only if you use E_STRICT.
>
> Am I missing something (bear with me, I am still on medication :-) but
> the following code does not print a warning here:
Because E_Strict is set at run time, and the warnings are thrown at
Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Only if you use E_STRICT.
Am I missing something (bear with me, I am still on medication :-) but
the following code does not print a warning here:
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/
Das Buch zu PHP 5: ht
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Nope. The final decision was to only check this during E_STRICT
because there's no reason why inheritance should be different from
implementation. People here felt that due to PHP not supporting
function overloading we should not be very strict, and therefore, only
give thi
Nope. The final decision was to only check this during E_STRICT because
there's no reason why inheritance should be different from implementation.
People here felt that due to PHP not supporting function overloading we
should not be very strict, and therefore, only give this warning in E_STRICT.
Hi -
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Only if you use E_STRICT. There was a long discussion about this on
internals@ a few weeks ago.
At 11:57 AM 3/17/2004 +0100, Clemens Gutweiler wrote:
interface person {
function wakeup( $day, $time );
}
class hugo implements per
Only if you use E_STRICT. There was a long discussion about this on
internals@ a few weeks ago.
At 11:57 AM 3/17/2004 +0100, Clemens Gutweiler wrote:
Hi,
> From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I rolled RC1 of RC1 (didn't change the version from -dev on
> purpose because
> RC1RC1 is ki
Hi,
> From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I rolled RC1 of RC1 (didn't change the version from -dev on
> purpose because
> RC1RC1 is kind of odd and I didn't want it to confuse people :).
> I will roll RC1 on the 17th so if there are "serious" show
> stoppers speak up.
wakeup( 'mon
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 22:28, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Timm,
>
> this is fixed now.
Verified.
- Timm
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hello Timm,
this is fixed now.
marcus
Tuesday, March 16, 2004, 9:39:09 PM, you wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 07:10, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> I rolled RC1 of RC1 (didn't change the version from -dev on purpose because
>> RC1RC1 is kind of odd and I didn't want it to confuse people :)
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 07:10, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I rolled RC1 of RC1 (didn't change the version from -dev on purpose because
> RC1RC1 is kind of odd and I didn't want it to confuse people :).
> I will roll RC1 on the 17th so if there are "serious" show stoppers speak up.
[EMAIL PROTEC
Zitat von Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I fixed get_object_vars() a couple of days ago. Can you check if this still
occurs?
No, that seems to have fixed it, thanks!
At 01:52 PM 3/15/2004 +0100, Jan Schneider wrote:
Zitat von Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I will roll RC1 on the 17th so if
I fixed get_object_vars() a couple of days ago. Can you check if this still
occurs?
Andi
At 01:52 PM 3/15/2004 +0100, Jan Schneider wrote:
Zitat von Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I will roll RC1 on the 17th so if there are "serious" show stoppers speak up.
Dunno what you consider "serious",
Zitat von Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I will roll RC1 on the 17th so if there are "serious" show stoppers speak up.
Dunno what you consider "serious", but bug 2
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=2 is on the ze2 level.
Jan.
--
http://www.horde.org - The Horde Project
http://www.ammma.de
I found a couple of little bugs in new sockets transport layer
while on the cruise; I'll fix those in next couple of days.
--Wez.
- Original Message -
From: "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 8:18 PM
Subject: [PHP-DEV] RC1
> Hey,
>
>
> Adding it to the distribution is +1 from me, enabling it by default is a
> -1 personally as I would turn others on by default before this one.
I agree 100% with Derick
Georg
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 09:53:03PM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > > > (b) Default inclusion of the SOAP extension
> > >
> > >That word 'default' kinda muddies the issue - are you suggesting that SOAP
> > >is included in distributions, or are you suggesting that it should be
> > >enabled by defau
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 22:12 04/02/2004, Steph wrote:
>
> > > (b) Default inclusion of the SOAP extension
> >
> >That word 'default' kinda muddies the issue - are you suggesting that SOAP
> >is included in distributions, or are you suggesting that it should be
> >enabled by d
At 01:37 PM 2/4/2004 -0800, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> (a) Failure return value of FETCH_RESOURCE and the default return value -
> should we change it to be FALSE? Today it's NULL, which is inconsistent
> with most of the functions in PHP which return FALSE o
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> (a) Failure return value of FETCH_RESOURCE and the default return value -
> should we change it to be FALSE? Today it's NULL, which is inconsistent
> with most of the functions in PHP which return FALSE on failure. The
> downside is that changing it m
Hello Andi,
Wednesday, February 4, 2004, 10:15:35 PM, you wrote:
> At 09:53 PM 2/4/2004 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>>Hello Zeev,
>>
>>Wednesday, February 4, 2004, 7:20:47 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> > Hey,
>>
>> > As you must have realized Andi and I have resolved some of the key
>> > remaining issues
At 09:53 PM 2/4/2004 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Zeev,
Wednesday, February 4, 2004, 7:20:47 PM, you wrote:
> Hey,
> As you must have realized Andi and I have resolved some of the key
> remaining issues for PHP 5 (and we still are).
> Due to fact that some of these changes have been pretty
Hello Zeev,
Wednesday, February 4, 2004, 7:20:47 PM, you wrote:
> Hey,
> As you must have realized Andi and I have resolved some of the key
> remaining issues for PHP 5 (and we still are).
> Due to fact that some of these changes have been pretty big changes we
> suggest to turn the RC1 we wan
On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 15:11, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 22:12 04/02/2004, Steph wrote:
>
> > > (b) Default inclusion of the SOAP extension
> >
> >That word 'default' kinda muddies the issue - are you suggesting that SOAP
> >is included in distributions, or are you suggesting that it should be
> >ena
Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 22:12 04/02/2004, Steph wrote:
> (b) Default inclusion of the SOAP extension
That word 'default' kinda muddies the issue - are you suggesting that
SOAP
is included in distributions, or are you suggesting that it should be
enabled by default?
I think we should consider b
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 22:12 04/02/2004, Steph wrote:
>
>> > (b) Default inclusion of the SOAP extension
>>
>> That word 'default' kinda muddies the issue - are you suggesting that
>> SOAP
>> is included in distributions, or are you suggesting that it should be
>> enabled by default?
>
> I think
At 22:12 04/02/2004, Steph wrote:
> (b) Default inclusion of the SOAP extension
That word 'default' kinda muddies the issue - are you suggesting that SOAP
is included in distributions, or are you suggesting that it should be
enabled by default?
I think we should consider both.
Zeev
--
PHP Inter
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:45:50 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ilia Alshanetsky) wrote:
> > (b) Default inclusion of the SOAP extension
>
> +0. Overall it seems like a good idea. However, I am not sure how
> stable is SOAP extension after massive revisions Dmitry did and the
> TODO list still has quite a f
> (b) Default inclusion of the SOAP extension
That word 'default' kinda muddies the issue - are you suggesting that SOAP
is included in distributions, or are you suggesting that it should be
enabled by default?
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:46:57 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pierre-Alain Joye) wrote:
> It is a problem (afaics) for:
> - foreach
> - reflection
> - dump functions
>
> Btw, in the same topic, are the $foo->bar++; bug is solved too?
are the $foo->bar++; and friends (+=, -=, ...) solved too?
pierre
--
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:37:11 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andi Gutmans) wrote:
> Quite a problem, no doubt. The question is, should we expect every
> overloaded object to be able to give its properties as a hash? (I
> guess it could return an empty one).
> Pierre, is the problem only with foreach()?
> > (a) Failure return value of FETCH_RESOURCE and the default return
value -
> > should we change it to be FALSE? Today it's NULL, which is inconsistent
> > with most of the functions in PHP which return FALSE on failure. The
> > downside is that changing it may break scripts that check the retu
At 02:33 PM 2/4/2004 -0500, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-dev&m=107367078904900&w=2
> >
> >The main problem with a too early beta/rc release is we (well you ;) )
> >have to be sure that the ZE2 apis works the way it should. And not only
> >from the php side. For the
> >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-dev&m=107367078904900&w=2
> >
> >The main problem with a too early beta/rc release is we (well you ;) )
> >have to be sure that the ZE2 apis works the way it should. And not only
> >from the php side. For the good all php extensions that are not bundled
> >wit
At 07:55 PM 2/4/2004 +0100, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
> A couple of issues we'd like to decide onbefore we go out with beta 4
> are:
One "issue" I would like to put in the light again. The internal ZE
2 APIs. One "issue" here:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-dev&m=107367078904900&w=2
The main p
> Due to fact that some of these changes have been pretty big changes we
> suggest to turn the RC1 we wanted to release at the end of January to a
> beta 4 by the end of next week.
> If everything goes smoothly after that, we think RC1 should follow two
> weeks later.
+1 on beta 4.
2 weeks from
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:20:47 +0200
Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> As you must have realized Andi and I have resolved some of the key
> remaining issues for PHP 5 (and we still are).
> Due to fact that some of these changes have been pretty big changes we
>
> suggest to turn
> (a) Failure return value of FETCH_RESOURCE and the default return value -
> should we change it to be FALSE? Today it's NULL, which is inconsistent
> with most of the functions in PHP which return FALSE on failure. The
> downside is that changing it may break scripts that check the return value
On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 13:36, Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg wrote:
> > (b) Default inclusion of the SOAP extension
> +1, Definitely.
Ditto on that and B4... However I do question the 2 week timeline
between the two, seems a bit short..
John
--
-=~=--=~=--=~=--=~=--=~=--=~=--=~=--=~=--=~=--=~=--=~
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Due to fact that some of these changes have been pretty big changes we
> suggest to turn the RC1 we wanted to release at the end of January to a
> beta 4 by the end of next week.
I am glad we're doing another beta. There's still more than enough
outstandi
On Feb 4, 2004, at 1:20 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
(b) Default inclusion of the SOAP extension
I'm +1 for this. It seems to have been making rapid progression and
it's an important technology to make easy to access.
George
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, vi
> Hey,
>
> (a) Failure return value of FETCH_RESOURCE and the default return value -
> should we change it to be FALSE? Today it's NULL, which is inconsistent
> with most of the functions in PHP which return FALSE on failure. The
> downside is that changing it may break scripts that check the
46 matches
Mail list logo
