Hi!
I've committed support for UTS #46 to 5.4 and trunk.
See http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=319770
Could you please also fix the protos on the functions? And updating the
docs would be ideal :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(
hi Gustavo!
Thanks!
can you add a note to UPGRADING and in the bug report please?
Cheers,
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> I've committed support for UTS #46 to 5.4 and trunk.
>
> See http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=319770
>
> --
> Gustavo Lopes
>
> --
I've committed support for UTS #46 to 5.4 and trunk.
See http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=319770
--
Gustavo Lopes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> I think yes, it's better to have one options set than "options" and "another
> options which aren't first options but different options". I don't think
> there's breaking of abstraction if we use more options that ICU has, and
> probability
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>> I thought that we already agreed using an output argument for getting
>>> the specific error instead of returning either a string or an array.
>>>
>>
>> That's wh
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> I thought that we already agreed using an output argument for getting
>> the specific error instead of returning either a string or an array.
>>
>
> That's what I was thinking too, but Gustavo seems to plan to do mixed
> return, w
Hi!
I thought that we already agreed using an output argument for getting
the specific error instead of returning either a string or an array.
That's what I was thinking too, but Gustavo seems to plan to do mixed
return, which I think is a worse option.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Archit
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Technically, yes, it is possible. But is it desirable? It would require
>> breaking the abstraction and looking at the actual values of the flags,
>> choosing one of the unused bits (possibly a high one) and hope it'll never
>> be u
Hi!
Technically, yes, it is possible. But is it desirable? It would require
breaking the abstraction and looking at the actual values of the flags,
choosing one of the unused bits (possibly a high one) and hope it'll never
be used in future. Plus, in the current patch, the value of the variant
c
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:03:26 -, Stas Malyshev
wrote:
1. I'm not sure I understand why we need two options fields. We already
have one options field, won't that be enough? We can combine options and
space them in a way that old ones work fine with new ones, can't we?
And have default v
10 matches
Mail list logo
