Hi, internals.
[Introduction]
I'm working on new php extension.
It's called "phprep". It's a glue between php and librep.
Why? PHP have a lot of good libs, lisp have the power and
this is my attempt to combine.
(Please no flames about power of langs.)
I want the extension to be open-source.
I wa
> From: netcat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 9:30 AM
> Is sf.net the right place to publish?
> Do I have restrictions (because it's a php extension)
> on picking up a license for the soft?
> (I mean except ones on sf.net)
you may want to look here:
http://pecl.php.
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Jon Parise wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 07:10:20PM -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>
> > Perhaps, if PEAR developers wrote proper code & did not rely upon
> > unsupported & undocumented features we would not have this problem.
> > While they do, these problems will occur. I
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Jon Parise wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:36:11PM -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>
> > On October 7, 2003 08:19 pm, Jon Parise wrote:
> > > By your definition, the code was "proper" (i.e. did not generate
> > > warnings) until the underlying rules were changed, and I'm su
Hello,
Here's a patch against PHP_4 that provides a new function called
apache_get_scoreboard(). The function returns an array containing
current scoreboard.
The idea behind this is to provide a flexible way to dump Apache
scoreboard. There are several applications that I can think of : a tool
> [Questions]
>
> Is sf.net the right place to publish?
As Lukas pointed out, why use sf.net to host your PHP extension
when you can use the PHP facilities? :-)
Please read this link for more information about PECL:
http://news.php.net/article.php?group=php.pecl.dev&article=5
> Do I have restri
At 03:00 08/10/2003, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On October 7, 2003 08:45 pm, Jan Schneider wrote:
> I never said that the current behaviour is in any way consistent. But which
> behaviour the more logical one is, is debateable. Many languages support
> context dependant implicit casting, and PHP even
At 10:06 08/10/2003, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Jon Parise wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 07:10:20PM -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>
> > Perhaps, if PEAR developers wrote proper code & did not rely upon
> > unsupported & undocumented features we would not have this problem.
> > W
At 10:10 08/10/2003, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Jon Parise wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:36:11PM -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>
> > On October 7, 2003 08:19 pm, Jon Parise wrote:
> > > By your definition, the code was "proper" (i.e. did not generate
> > > warnings) until the
On Wednesday, Oct 8, 2003, at 11:12 Europe/Copenhagen, Zeev Suraski
wrote:
The fact of the matter is that other than your opinion (which several
people may support), there was and still isn't nothing problematic
with silently ignoring NULL arrays.
I hope the same reasoning, which I completely ag
Zitat von Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On October 7, 2003 08:45 pm, Jan Schneider wrote:
> > I never said that the current behaviour is in any way consistent. But
> which
> > behaviour the more logical one is, is debateable. Many languages
> support
> > context dependant implicit castin
At 11:49 08/10/2003, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
On Wednesday, Oct 8, 2003, at 11:12 Europe/Copenhagen, Zeev Suraski wrote:
The fact of the matter is that other than your opinion (which several
people may support), there was and still isn't nothing problematic with
silently ignoring NULL arrays.
I ho
On Wednesday, Oct 8, 2003, at 12:49 Europe/Copenhagen, Zeev Suraski
wrote:
At 11:49 08/10/2003, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
On Wednesday, Oct 8, 2003, at 11:12 Europe/Copenhagen, Zeev Suraski
wrote:
The fact of the matter is that other than your opinion (which
several people may support), there was
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 01:23:42PM +0200, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
>
> No this behavior hasn't been changed. I just thought that no harm would
> be done if it was changed and no warning was issued.
I think the point is to minimise the number of changes in this
``bug-fix release'', and that applie
On Wednesday, Oct 8, 2003, at 13:48 Europe/Copenhagen, Anil
Madhavapeddy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 01:23:42PM +0200, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
No this behavior hasn't been changed. I just thought that no harm
would
be done if it was changed and no warning was issued.
I think the point is to mi
On October 8, 2003 05:12 am, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> The fact of the matter is that other than your opinion (which several
> people may support), there was and still isn't nothing problematic with
> silently ignoring NULL arrays.
Jay's patch was already reverted by Jani so arguing this point is most
At 14:34 08/10/2003, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On October 8, 2003 05:12 am, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> The fact of the matter is that other than your opinion (which several
> people may support), there was and still isn't nothing problematic with
> silently ignoring NULL arrays.
Jay's patch was already re
On October 8, 2003 08:53 am, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >However, please note the following:
> >1) Functionality was NOT changed in 4.3.4 a mere advisory was added
> > indicated a behavior change in PHP5.
>
> What do you mean by a mere advisory?
In 4.3.X the patch only added E_NOTICE that majority of u
At 15:07 08/10/2003, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On October 8, 2003 08:53 am, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >However, please note the following:
> >1) Functionality was NOT changed in 4.3.4 a mere advisory was added
> > indicated a behavior change in PHP5.
>
> What do you mean by a mere advisory?
In 4.3.X the
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I don't think it extends there very naturally, or at all for that
> matter. NULL is special because it's what empty variables evaluate to, and
> makes for a very typical initial value of an array.
I agree with that, allowing NULL instead of an array is
What's the logic behind version_compare() thinking that 1 < 1.0 < 1.0.0?
Talking about the versionning world, to me look quiet obvious that all
these should be equivalent. If PHP 5.0 is released the next release
won't be 5.0.0, will be 5.0.1 intead.
That could lead in problems with software dep
* Thus wrote Curt Zirzow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> You might get better and more authorative feedback if you post this
> question to the php-dev list.
Oops, I didn't realize this was crossposted.. sorry.
Curt
--
"My PHP key is worn out"
PHP List stats since 1997:
http://zirzow.dynd
Hi Group,
It's really nice to see the file upload meter
developed by Doru Theodor Petrescu
(http://pdoru.from.ro/). He did a nice job. He created
serveral patches for the php 4 to enable the file
upload meter.
I was just wondering what will happen to the file
upload meter once the php 5.0 will re
* Thus wrote Hardik Doshi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Hi Group,
>
> It's really nice to see the file upload meter
> developed by Doru Theodor Petrescu
> (http://pdoru.from.ro/). He did a nice job. He created
> serveral patches for the php 4 to enable the file
> upload meter.
>
> I was just wondering w
(Note: this email seems to relate to this list in my opinion, but I
have been chewed out before when posting such emails)
I am using PHP 4.3.2, and it seems that testing objects for equality
(with == or ===) causes an internal bug when the objects have recursive
instance variables. That is, i
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 10:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (Note: this email seems to relate to this list in my opinion, but I
> have been chewed out before when posting such emails)
>
> I am using PHP 4.3.2, and it seems that testing objects for equality
> (with == or ===) causes an in
26 matches
Mail list logo
