Sounds like a good improvement for 5.4 to me. Anybody reviewed the patch
already?
Am 13.06.11 16:47 schrieb "Sébastien Durand" unter :
>Hi there !
>
>Any news about these functions ?
>
>How difficult is the implementation ?
>
>http://bugs.php.net/45002
>
>--
>PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Developm
Hi Lukas, hi Marcus,
Am Freitag, den 02.01.2009, 15:53 +0100 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:
[...]
> Ok, I guess I totally missed the "static class" patch.
> @Lars: Could you open a new thread and start a discussion about that
> patch there?
Thanks for mentioning the patch but it is too early for bu
On 02.01.2009, at 15:20, Marcus Boerger wrote:
There are two things here. One is the __getStatic which I do not care
for personally but which has the potential of requiring c level api
changes. The other is 'static class' as in the patch provided by Lars.
That looks pretty good to me and from
hi,
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> @Marcus: Like I said its a question of someone writing the code .. Timm
> proposed a patch which Stas thought had issues and then nobody picked things
> up ..
>
> @Pierre/all: Well we did announce something like a freeze. Of course t
Hello Lukas,
Friday, January 2, 2009, 2:59:40 PM, you wrote:
> On 01.01.2009, at 17:55, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> hi!
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>>> Hello Lukas,
>>>
>>> if anything requires an internal API change than we at least should
>>> do
>>> those parts. B
On 01.01.2009, at 17:55, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi!
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Lukas,
if anything requires an internal API change than we at least should
do
those parts. Besides this issue was long ago raised and imo should
go in.
As we get more and more peo
hi!
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Lukas,
>
> if anything requires an internal API change than we at least should do
> those parts. Besides this issue was long ago raised and imo should go in.
> As we get more and more people testing what 5.3 will be we get more an
Hello Lukas,
if anything requires an internal API change than we at least should do
those parts. Besides this issue was long ago raised and imo should go in.
As we get more and more people testing what 5.3 will be we get more and
more complains about the lack of these. And isn't that the goal of
Hi Lukas,
Am Donnerstag, den 01.01.2009, 02:36 +0200 schrieb George Antoniadis:
[...]
> Any news on this? :)
> I don't see this in 5.3 but are there any hopes for pushing this on
> the HEAD of 6 sometime soon? :)
Not from my side. But I think I will find time to work on it in the next
few weeks.
On 01.01.2009, at 01:36, George Antoniadis wrote:
I guess very-very soon is already over, and yes, absolutely, this
patch is
far from perfection, so I'd also delay it. Maybe someone (Lars from
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/static-classes?) might also want to gather
some
motivation for the __*Stat
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Timm Friebe wrote:
> Hi,
> First of all, thanks for reviewing and the feedback. I knew this wasn't
> perfect, and tried to understand what was previously done for __get and
> __set and transport that to the static counterparts. Unfortunately not all
> "infrastruct
Hi,
First of all, thanks for reviewing and the feedback. I knew this wasn't
perfect, and tried to understand what was previously done for __get and
__set and transport that to the static counterparts. Unfortunately not all
"infrastructure" like the std_*_property_handler callbacks is in place f
Hi!
hmm .. i also emailed Timm a few weeks ago and got no reaction. the
question now is .. does someone else care enough to work through the
issues Stas has noted to get things in shape to be committed?
Well, this thing is trickier that it appears initially. It can be done,
of course, but it
On 10.10.2008, at 22:58, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I've updated the patch and added some tests with it.
http://sitten-polizei.de/php/getstatic.diff
Looked at the patch. There's some things I noticed there:
1. _getstatic->common.fn_flags |= ~ZEND_ACC_ALLOW_STATIC;
What was the idea here
Hi!
I've updated the patch and added some tests with it.
http://sitten-polizei.de/php/getstatic.diff
Looked at the patch. There's some things I noticed there:
1. _getstatic->common.fn_flags |= ~ZEND_ACC_ALLOW_STATIC;
What was the idea here? Maybe ~ is not intended?
2. Do we really need ZEND_
On 08.09.2008, at 11:23, Timm Friebe wrote:
Hi,
[...__(set|get|unset|isset)static()...]
Patch looks pretty good. Plaease add __issetStatic and
__unsetStatic. Then provide tests and submit to HEAD. For 5.3
Lukas and Johannes have to agree but I am sure they first want to
see it in HEAD.
Hi,
[...__(set|get|unset|isset)static()...]
Patch looks pretty good. Plaease add __issetStatic and __unsetStatic.
Then provide tests and submit to HEAD. For 5.3 Lukas and Johannes have to
agree but I am sure they first want to see it in HEAD.
Hope we havent missed any other we need to make t
I am pretty sure that it's most common (and weirdest) use will be to have
some kind of custom superglobals that will piss a lot of people off.
Easier registry patterns etc.
registry::$name = 'test';
echo registry::$name;
Sounds stupid but since custom superglobals have been denied it's the next
b
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 15:06, David Zülke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am 22.08.2008 um 14:08 schrieb George Antoniadis:
>
>> I thought this had allready been denied, or am I wrong?
>> Also can new features still be implemented for 5.3? Isn't that closed?
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, I SO want this f
Am 22.08.2008 um 14:08 schrieb George Antoniadis:
I thought this had allready been denied, or am I wrong?
Also can new features still be implemented for 5.3? Isn't that closed?
Don't get me wrong, I SO want this feature! :P
The mail below explicitly states that both release managers have give
I thought this had allready been denied, or am I wrong?
Also can new features still be implemented for 5.3? Isn't that closed?
Don't get me wrong, I SO want this feature! :P
G.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> On 15.08.2008, at 12:06, Marcus Boerg
On 15.08.2008, at 12:06, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Timm,
Friday, August 15, 2008, 12:44:19 AM, you wrote:
Hi again,
Attached you'll find an incomplete patch against PHP_5_3 to add this
functionality. If you like it let me know and I can finish it.
Darn, seems the list didn't like my t
Hello Timm,
Friday, August 15, 2008, 12:44:19 AM, you wrote:
> Hi again,
>> Attached you'll find an incomplete patch against PHP_5_3 to add this
>> functionality. If you like it let me know and I can finish it.
> Darn, seems the list didn't like my text/plain attachment. Well, here we go:
>
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Timm Friebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi again,
Attached you'll find an incomplete patch against PHP_5_3 to add this
functionality. If you like it let me know and I can finish it.
Darn, seems the list didn't like my text/plain attachmen
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Timm Friebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Attached you'll find an incomplete patch against PHP_5_3 to add this
>> functionality. If you like it let me know and I can finish it.
>>
>
> Darn, seems the list didn't like my text/plain attachment. Well, he
Hi again,
Attached you'll find an incomplete patch against PHP_5_3 to add this
functionality. If you like it let me know and I can finish it.
Darn, seems the list didn't like my text/plain attachment. Well, here we go:
http://sitten-polizei.de/php/get-static.diff
- Timm
--
PHP Internals
26 matches
Mail list logo
