Re: Re[2]: [PHP-DEV] Variable Scope

2003-08-30 Thread LingWitt
It is you who attributes such an elevating status to this discourse. I had not intention of pretentiousness. You have, in fact, condemned yourself: >>PHP is designed for dummies. On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 14:55 America/New_York, Wez Furlong wrote: OK, so how long before we get to prove God

Re: Re[2]: [PHP-DEV] Variable Scope

2003-08-30 Thread Wez Furlong
TED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 7:41 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: [PHP-DEV] Variable Scope On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 14:31 America/New_York, Marcus Börger wrote: > Hello LingWitt, Hi. > > - PHP is typeless Thanks, but that's established. >

Re: Re[2]: [PHP-DEV] Variable Scope

2003-08-30 Thread Derick Rethans
Dear LingWitt, On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > - for doesn't span any declaration level and hence does not have its > > own symbol table > > This is ridiculous. No, it is reality! If you don't like our reality, but instead want to live on your own little one-person reality,

Re: Re[2]: [PHP-DEV] Variable Scope

2003-08-30 Thread DvDmanDT
Hi, if that bothers you so much, why don't you just write your own version of PHP and allow ppl to download it, then we'll see how many ppl downloads your version... You know, it's more like a feature than a bug... -- // DvDmanDT MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Re[2]: [PHP-DEV] Variable Scope

2003-08-30 Thread LingWitt
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 14:31 America/New_York, Marcus Börger wrote: Hello LingWitt, Hi. - PHP is typeless Thanks, but that's established. - for doesn't span any declaration level and hence does not have its own symbol table This is ridiculous. - PHP is not c, not C++ not Java, not...

Re[2]: [PHP-DEV] Variable Scope

2003-08-30 Thread Marcus Börger
Hello LingWitt, - PHP is typeless - for doesn't span any declaration level and hence does not have its own symbol table - PHP is not c, not C++ not Java, not...IT IS PHP Saturday, August 30, 2003, 8:24:49 PM, you wrote: Lic> That part of the for loop is inherently declaratory. As a result, the