As I've understood it your example is like only valid in the latest C++
standards or something... Possibly also in newer C... But it's new... MSVC6
does not have that implented I think...
But I might be pretty badly misstaken on this one...
--
// DvDmanDT
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail: [EMAIL PROT
NOTE: I am reentering the fray on provocation.
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 19:59 America/New_York, Ard Biesheuvel
wrote:
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
int num = array[i];
printf("%d", num);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
printf("%d", i * num);
}
Perhaps thi
I thank you for your open-mindedness, but I must admit I was in the
fault. I supplied a version from a modern language such as C++.
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 20:36 America/New_York, DvDmanDT wrote:
As I've understood it your example is like only valid in the latest C++
standards or something
On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 09:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I thank you for your open-mindedness, but I must admit I was in the
fault. I supplied a version from a modern language such as C++.
No need to be a dick about it. Calling C++ 'modern' is about as
sensible as calling C 'ancien
I was sincere. I meant "modern" to mean more recent. Though, I do agree
with the correlation between your interpretation and response. I
apologize.
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 21:44 America/New_York, George
Schlossnagle wrote:
On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 09:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wr
I was sincere. I meant "modern" to mean more recent. Though, I do agree
with the correlation between your interpretation and response. I
apologize.
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 21:44 America/New_York, George
Schlossnagle wrote:
On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 09:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wr
I was sincere. I meant "modern" to mean more recent. Though, I do agree
with the correlation between your interpretation and response. I
apologize.
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 21:44 America/New_York, George
Schlossnagle wrote:
On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 09:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wr
I am saying that perhaps the for loop should treat that part as a
declaratory statement and mask outer variables.
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 15:28 America/New_York, Rasmus Lerdorf
wrote:
Yes, but you are adding a declaration separate from the for loop there.
So not the same at all given ther
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was sincere. I meant "modern" to mean more recent. Though, I do
agree with the correlation between your interpretation and response. I
apologize.
Yes, we can tell that you had a different, less offensive definition of
"modern." Our understanding is tripled, in fact. :
I am not sure if this is a bug, but I have came across two test cases
where the behavior is not as expected so I thought I would ask.
The problem I am having seems to be with addslashes not properly
escaping this type of string "C:\test\foo.exe". Here is the scenario:
$email->body = "This is a te
At 12:59 AM 8/31/2003 +0300, Jani Taskinen wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>>If so, then libxml 2.5.8 would have to be marked bad unless you can also
>>know when the other mods call their cleanup. This is a 2.5.8 issue only as
>>it was introduce in that version and fixed in 2.5.9.
Your string assignments look wrong. For example, "\t" is a tab
character. Try your test cases with 'This is a test email. Testing
c:\test\foo.exe'; that should give you a proper string.
Ken
Jeremy Johnstone wrote:
I am not sure if this is a bug, but I have came across two test cases
where the
The actual value of those variables are pulled in from other sources,
they are not actually hard coded like I showed below. It was simply for
illustration purposes.
Jeremy
On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 15:56, Ken Tossell wrote:
> Your string assignments look wrong. For example, "\t" is a tab
> character
Hi all,
Is this supposed to work?
interface test {
function my_function ($mandatory_parameter);
}
class test_class implements test {
function my_function ($mandatory_parameter, $optional_parameter = null)
{
}
}
The test_class class implements correctly the 'test' interface since PHP
Hello,
as ext/sablot has been removed from CVS [1], I would like to make a
feature request. One of the features I really liked about Sablotron was
the possibility of using schema handlers [2] to be able to realize
callbacks to PHP while processing (I used it to calculate image sizes if
needed, to
From: Andi Gutmans
> > I can add that..but shouldn't we just go ahead and require
> > 2.5.9 or greater instead of skipping ONE version??
>
> I think that's probably a good idea although it might piss some people off
:)
Since this is still a beta why not just skip that one version. 2.5.4 i
I see that recently mail() function was changed so that sendmail_path
parameter in php.ini does not allow to place parameters in the command
anymore - which, at least for me, breaks sending mail from whole site. Is
there any reason for such change?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> I see that recently mail() function was changed so that sendmail_path
> parameter in php.ini does not allow to place parameters in the command
> anymore - which, at least for me, breaks sending mail from whole site. Is
> there any reason for such
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 10:11, Curt Zirzow wrote:
> * Thus wrote Jeremy Johnstone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >
> > $email->body = "This is a test email. Testing c:\test\foo.exe";
> >
> > When the $email object is later broke down and stored in the
database
> > addslashes is done (as it should be) befor
On Sunday, Aug 31, 2003, at 07:36 America/New_York, Jeremy Johnstone
wrote:
It ain't gonna happen, so why continue to make an ass of yourself?
When you get three of the top people in PHP's development telling you
it
will NEVER happen, then you should really pay attention! No amount of
explainin
Thank you for the first decent response. I concede.
On Sunday, Aug 31, 2003, at 07:09 America/New_York, Zeev Suraski wrote:
As illustrated, we're not considering a change because what you're
suggesting contradicts fundamental building blocks of PHP: no need to
declare variables, and the fact t
On Sunday, Aug 31, 2003, at 06:16 America/New_York, Ard Biesheuvel
wrote:
Perhaps this is an example from C++, but it illustrates my point.
This may be a better example, if we are to step back a decade or two:
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 5; i++)
What is so 'inherently declaratory' about this for() ?
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Rob Richards wrote:
>From: Andi Gutmans
>
>> > I can add that..but shouldn't we just go ahead and require
>> > 2.5.9 or greater instead of skipping ONE version??
>>
>> I think that's probably a good idea although it might piss some people off
>:)
>
>Since this is still
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Rob Richards wrote:
>From: Andi Gutmans
>
>> > I can add that..but shouldn't we just go ahead and require
>> > 2.5.9 or greater instead of skipping ONE version??
>>
>> I think that's probably a good idea although it might piss some people off
>:)
>
>Since this is still
* Thus wrote Jeremy Johnstone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> $email->body = "This is a test email. Testing c:\test\foo.exe";
>
> When the $email object is later broke down and stored in the database
> addslashes is done (as it should be) before the variable is stored.
>
> If you check the database th
At 14:01 31/08/2003, Rob Richards wrote:
From: Jani Taskinen
> And do you really want to hunt after all ghost bugs that are really
> caused by buggy libxml versions..? And like you said, PHP 5 is still
> beta. Nobody should be using it for real anyway. :)
>
> (and they can always do
From: Jani Taskinen
> And do you really want to hunt after all ghost bugs that are really
> caused by buggy libxml versions..? And like you said, PHP 5 is still
> beta. Nobody should be using it for real anyway. :)
>
> (and they can always do '--disable-xml' etc.)
>
> So I say w
At 22:06 30/08/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm talking about the traditional for construct on which the PHP version
is based. In PHP, that part of the for construct is somewhat meaningless.
I'm saying that it is not as programmatically powerful as it could be. I
understand how it currently wo
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 06:18, Andi Gutmans wrote:
[...libxml2 requirements...]
> > I can add that..but shouldn't we just go ahead and require
> > 2.5.9 or greater instead of skipping ONE version??
>
> I think that's probably a good idea although it might piss some people off :)
Just FYI, I
Perhaps this is an example from C++, but it illustrates my point. This
may be a better example, if we are to step back a decade or two:
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 5; i++)
What is so 'inherently declaratory' about this for() ?
With this example, you've illustrated the exact reason why this is not
po
* Thus wrote Jeremy Johnstone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 10:11, Curt Zirzow wrote:
> > * Thus wrote Jeremy Johnstone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> You might want to check the documentation again as it does not say
> anything about the db server translating \\ into \. This seems highly
Does these hacks apply to ZE2 too ?
"Sebastian Bergmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu na mensagem
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Since nobody -- not even the "perpetrators" themselves -- has brought
> this to this list yet I'll simply post these two links:
>
> - http://edwardbear.org/optimizatio
yes. PHP4 was only chosen because PHP5 (Zend Engine 2) was a moving
target, and after a day, our patch would be broken, or we'd constantly
have to remerge. Nearly every optimization applys to Zend Engine 2,
with the exception of the optimizations that are already in Zend Engine
2 that is :)
-Ste
How long have you been testing these hacks? Are there any side-effects ?
Are you planning a ZE2 patch? I can test it...
Cristiano
"Sterling Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu na mensagem
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> yes. PHP4 was only chosen because PHP5 (Zend Engine 2) was a moving
> target, and
we're not planning anything. sebastian brought this to the list, not
us.
-sterling
Am Mo, 2003-09-01 um 01.43 schrieb Cristiano Duarte:
> How long have you been testing these hacks? Are there any side-effects ?
> Are you planning a ZE2 patch? I can test it...
>
> Cristiano
>
> "Sterling Hughe
35 matches
Mail list logo
