Guys,
I definitely think that the path to 5.1 currently has to focus on PDO and
the ZE stabilizing. I plan to release Beta 3 hopefully tomorrow (a bit late
because I'm still waiting for some PDO fixes Wez wants to make). Commiting
a new Date extension at this point is definitely high risk. Der
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:16:45 -0700
> > Andrei Zmievski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Can we please wrap up the whole OO/non-OO discussion and just fix
> > > the damn ext/date so that it works
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:16:45 -0700
Andrei Zmievski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can we please wrap up the whole OO/non-OO discussion and just fix
the damn ext/date so that it works as advertised? The rest can be
done later. L
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:16:45 -0700
> Andrei Zmievski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Can we please wrap up the whole OO/non-OO discussion and just fix
> > the damn ext/date so that it works as advertised? The rest can be
> > done later. Let's not h
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:16:45 -0700
Andrei Zmievski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we please wrap up the whole OO/non-OO discussion and just fix
> the damn ext/date so that it works as advertised? The rest can be
> done later. Let's not hold up RC1 unless really necessary.
It's not a stopping fo
Hello Andrei,
1
Monday, July 11, 2005, 7:16:45 PM, you wrote:
> Can we please wrap up the whole OO/non-OO discussion and just fix the
> damn ext/date so that it works as advertised? The rest can be done
> later. Let's not hold up RC1 unless really necessary.
> -Andrei
> On Jul 8, 200
Can we please wrap up the whole OO/non-OO discussion and just fix the
damn ext/date so that it works as advertised? The rest can be done
later. Let's not hold up RC1 unless really necessary.
-Andrei
On Jul 8, 2005, at 1:06 PM, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Derick,
Friday, July 8, 2005, 2:31:1
Since the underlying way of passing internal data would be an object,
the functions you propose may as well be object methods. Aside from that
the API looks good.
Ilia
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hello Pierre-Alain,
since we now have ext/date shouldn't we rename pecl/date to
something different for easier integration? And i also do not
know if we aren't running into problems later if two extensions
have the same name.
marcus
Friday, July 8, 2005, 12:44:45 PM, you wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Ju
Hello Derick,
Friday, July 8, 2005, 2:31:14 PM, you wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
>> I would love to be able to do something like this:
>>
>> $d = new Date(time());
>> $d->month++;
>> $d->print("Y-m-d"); // date() equiv.
> Adding methods is no problem, that's what you get
At 02:36 PM 7/8/2005 +0200, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:31:14 +0200 (CEST)
Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
>
> > I would love to be able to do something like this:
> >
> > $d = new Date(time());
> > $d->month++;
> > $d->pr
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:31:14 +0200 (CEST)
Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
>
> > I would love to be able to do something like this:
> >
> > $d = new Date(time());
> > $d->month++;
> > $d->print("Y-m-d"); // date() equiv.
>
> Adding methods is
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
> I would love to be able to do something like this:
>
> $d = new Date(time());
> $d->month++;
> $d->print("Y-m-d"); // date() equiv.
Adding methods is no problem, that's what you get for free anyway, I
just think that $d->month is too much magic, and
On Friday 08 July 2005 02:17, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
[snip]
> This is what I talk about when I say a common Date object in php.
> Derick exported the headers on my demand, this is a good first step.
I agree that it would be a great idea to have a common Date object in PHP. And
since most of it
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 09:16:29 +0200 (CEST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Derick Rethans) wrote:
> Objects are not harder to implement, I found it actually more
> straight forward. Besides that, making it an object allows other
> people to extend it, something that Pierre wants for his pecl/
> date.
I do not
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> If you're just wrapping the date type with a class, I don't see why it
> shouldn't be a resource. It'd give you the same thing but would be easier to
> implement (unless I'm missing something).
Objects are not harder to implement, I found it actually more
I think what makes most sense is for you two to work together on this.
Again, I am more than happy to contribute.
Andi
At 02:17 AM 7/8/2005 +0200, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:56:51 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andi Gutmans) wrote:
> Hey Derick,
>
> If you're just wrapping the d
On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:56 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
It would look the following:
$timeZone->getName();
vs.
date_timezone_get($date);
$date->getOffset();
vs.
date_offset_get($date);
Personally, unrelated to OO I think it's a nicer and cleaner way of
exposing such an API. It would also make it e
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:56:51 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andi Gutmans) wrote:
> Hey Derick,
>
> If you're just wrapping the date type with a class, I don't see
> why it shouldn't be a resource. It'd give you the same thing but
> would be easier to implement (unless I'm missing something).
> I realiz
Hey Derick,
If you're just wrapping the date type with a class, I don't see why it
shouldn't be a resource. It'd give you the same thing but would be easier
to implement (unless I'm missing something).
I realize you personally aren't fond of OO but it actually would work very
nicely with a Dat
20 matches
Mail list logo
