On 26/11/05, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 20:07, Ken Tossell wrote:
> > Not to start a flame war, but...
> >
> > How about STD, Std, or something similar? It certainly works for... that
> > language... that has multiple implementations of the standard classes.
On Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 09:1028PM +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> i think you didn't understand the whole point here. Naming something
> after an every day word just like 'Date' is like screaming for problems in
> bigger scenarios. It is a beginners mistake to not prefix such stuff.
Assuming this
"Jessie Hernandez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Bob Silva wrote:
> >>$x = $y ? foo:bar:baz:stupid;
> >
> >
> > I think "stupid" is the key word here, by forcing the whitespace or (),
you
> > are making the language itself stupid by not knowing how to parse
itself.
> Speaking of this, I like Greg's suggestion about prefixing all internal
> classes with PHP_. While there are certainly classes out there that are
> prefixed with it, we could tell developers that starting with e.g. PHP 6
> the PHP_* class scope is reserved for the language core and must not be
>
On Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 09:5522AM +0100, Ron Korving wrote:
> > Speaking of this, I like Greg's suggestion about prefixing all internal
> > classes with PHP_. While there are certainly classes out there that are
> > prefixed with it, we could tell developers that starting with e.g. PHP 6
> > the PH
Rasmus Lerdorf schrieb:
> I know it wasn't an intentional thing, but Derick's view that "Gotcha!
> It's in 5.1.0 now, so you can't change it" doesn't sit well with me
Whether or not Derick did this intentionally and/or for selfish reasons
I cannot say (but I do not think so, since it would be un
Rasmus Lerdorf schrieb:
> Pierre can come to some sort of truce on the actual implementation.
At least there is code from Derick on the table. If Pierre needs as much
time to show code for his Date extension than he needs for PIMP -- which
is his good right and I am not {b|f}laming here -- I do
Marcus Boerger wrote:
here again namespaces would be perfect. Given a lib that doesn't prefix
you'd simply do:
namespace LibNameHere { reqire "some_lib_include"; }
and be done...wohooo :-)
Only if newly introduced PHP core classes use a namespace too. You'll have
to use PHP\Date (or the like
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf schrieb:
Pierre can come to some sort of truce on the actual implementation.
At least there is code from Derick on the table. If Pierre needs as much
time to show code for his Date extension than he needs for PIMP -- which
is his good right and I am
Michael Wallner schrieb:
> I assume you missed the existence and ignorance of pecl/date
I was under the impression that was Derick's extension and that it was
symlinked from the pecl CVS module into the php-src module. Sorry!
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-berg
On Saturday 26 November 2005 00:36, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> I must be missing something. How is switch whitespace sensitive?
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=25667
Perhaps you will consider this different.
Even so, PHP is pretty much inconsistant all over the place, I don't think
having to put s
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
The attached patch is a possible solution to the date *crisis*, it
renames the class to PhpDate to avoid any namespace conflicts with pear
or custom user classes called date.
While there already were objections either voting for removing the class
altogether for now or
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
The attached patch is a possible solution to the date *crisis*, it
renames the class to PhpDate to avoid any namespace conflicts with pear
or custom user classes called date.
If there are no strong objection 5.1.1 (5.1.0 + this patch and nothing
e
Hello Oliver,
it doesn't matter to the compiler whether it is nonsense or not.
The only thing that matters is whether i can write a correct
lexer/parser for this without breaking stuff. Guys if we were requiring
space around the ternary or anything else we don't do right now then
the damage is m
Hello Martin,
the funny thing here is that obviously we cannot prefix things we have
right now. Using namepsaces we would be free to enforce namespaces upon
everyhting that's been built in and simply provide import. And if we
really wanted to we could also have a "zend.ze1_compatibility_mode" li
It strikes me that there are two sides here
One are insistant that Date will happen in a version of PHP5 while
others seem to think that it was agreed that this would be part of PHP6.
Currently if ISP were to roll 5.1 out without warning to users probably
more sites than were affected by the
Hello Stefan,
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 9:21:07 AM, you wrote:
> On 26/11/05, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 20:07, Ken Tossell wrote:
>> > Not to start a flame war, but...
>> >
>> > How about STD, Std, or something similar? It certainly works for... that
>
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:50:04 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Beaver) wrote:
> Pierre, you can do all the #ifdefs you want, this idea does not
> prevent this :). In addition, the #ifdef has no effect on this idea.
You do not get the main problem.
- The ifdef makes it disappear from a user point
Hmm.
Is this expected to be a long-term change to the way we're making the
binary version of PECL modules available for a given PHP release? Or
did we just miss one part of the release process for 5.1.0? (I've
added a comment to http://oss.backendmedia.com/ReleaseChecklist
accordingly).
I really
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:50:03 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ilia Alshanetsky) wrote:
> The attached patch is a possible solution to the date *crisis*, it
> renames the class to PhpDate to avoid any namespace conflicts with
> pear or custom user classes called date.
>
> If there are no strong objection
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 10:22:25 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sebastian Bergmann) wrote:
> Rasmus Lerdorf schrieb:
> > Pierre can come to some sort of truce on the actual implementation.
>
> At least there is code from Derick on the table. If Pierre needs as
> much time to show code for his Date extensi
Hello Marian,
that wouldn't buy you anything becasue even if we would allow single
overrides we would have to enforce ref or non ref return.
marcus
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 4:13:03 AM, you wrote:
> Maybe magic implementation was a better idea for [] overrieding like
> for __get, __set, __
i want to get ext/oracle
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hello Christian,
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 1:42:07 AM, you wrote:
> Marcus Boerger wrote:
>> here again namespaces would be perfect. Given a lib that doesn't prefix
>> you'd simply do:
>> namespace LibNameHere { reqire "some_lib_include"; }
>> and be done...wohooo :-)
> Only if newly introd
Hello Bob,
it is only awkward because you want to turn php into c++. We are a
different language here and thus can chose any separator that works for
us. And neither : nor :: work. Instead from keeping us from working by
having to explain this over and over and over again i suggest you show
me a
Hello Gareth,
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 2:22:15 AM, you wrote:
> Jessie Hernandez wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Christian Schneider wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> PS: I'd rather have : for namespaces with the whitespace restriction
>>> for ? a:x : b:y than the confusing (escaping characters outside of a
>>
On 11/26/05, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only thing that matters is whether i can write a correct
> lexer/parser for this without breaking stuff.
Im no parser expert at all, so just to be sure that I understand the
problem correctly: I guess you can't distinguish at the parser/
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
I think we should finally stop to commit non-bugfix changes to a release
Like the one you just committed couple of days ago? REVERT! :)
--Jani
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.
Hm, strange. It used to work some months ago. My idea is to throw away
the need of an interface for overrideing [] just like it is for ->. If
you mean that C coding will be a problem...I don't know but since we
were able to specify return by ref or not by ref a few months ago
(before the fix), I su
what are the options for the seperator? i have not been watching this topic
but is the . out of the question?
namespace.class->method();
--
Joseph Crawford Jr.
Zend Certified Engineer
Codebowl Solutions, Inc.
1-802-671-2021
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
So you're also for letting PEAR dictate what PHP has and not the other
way around? Somehow this doesn't sound right.
--Jani
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
I have to ask: what does renaming really buy us? The only purpose of
introducing this class in RC6, as far as I
Hello Greg,
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 1:20:36 AM, you wrote:
> Marcus Boerger wrote:
>> Hello Helgi,
>>
>> obviously one problem is that PEAR does ignore coding standards. Classes
>> should be prefixed in both pear and core. And neither Date nor File is in
>> any way prefixed. In th end all
On 11/26/05, Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So you're also for letting PEAR dictate what PHP has and not the other
> way around? Somehow this doesn't sound right.
No, I do not let Derick decided on his own what should be commited in
a last RC. I do not let Derick decides wh
Hello Sebastian,
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 1:46:31 PM, you wrote:
> On 11/26/05, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The only thing that matters is whether i can write a correct
>> lexer/parser for this without breaking stuff.
> Im no parser expert at all, so just to be sure that I u
Hello Marian,
have a guess. Di we do this change for fun? Actually we found some nasty
tricky problems.
marcus
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 1:48:15 PM, you wrote:
> Hm, strange. It used to work some months ago. My idea is to throw away
> the need of an interface for overrideing [] just like i
Hello Joseph,
then why start this discussion over again. Read first, think second. Third
write if there is still a need. Regarding second ever used the '.' operator
in PHP? And you are Zend certified, damn the test is to easy :-)
marcus
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 1:48:35 PM, you wrote:
> wh
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Pierre Joye wrote:
This ext/date problem is something I will hate to see happen again.
Well, it's totally your own fault. I remember the couple of times
you were asked to commit your stuff but you had some other things
to do. Now that someone did the work, you
Hello Marcus,
On 11/26/05, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A lexer splits on tokens while white space is optional. If present it
> allows separation of tokens. Forcing this would make whitespace a token
> which would be very bad. The parser then works on the tokens and doesn't
> see an
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 15:07:15 +0200 (EET)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jani Taskinen) wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> > This ext/date problem is something I will hate to see happen again.
>
> Well, it's totally your own fault. I remember the couple of times
> you were asked t
On 11/26/05, Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So you're also for letting PEAR dictate what PHP has and not the other
> way around? Somehow this doesn't sound right.
This is not about PEAR dictating, and the PEAR developers are not
those who would suffer from this PHP date cla
Hello Greg,
we previously shipped a lot of pear classes and now we only ship the
installer. Back when we had the pear classes in the main distro i used
to test them even though i didn't use any of them. Right now the only
stuff i test is stuff i really use and that is a single pear class and
tha
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 13:38 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Christian,
>
> Saturday, November 26, 2005, 1:42:07 AM, you wrote:
> > PS: I'd rather have : for namespaces with the whitespace restriction for
> > ? a:x : b:y than the confusing (escaping characters outside of a
> > string?) backs
Can we PLEASE make this list read-only for non-developers?
--Jani
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
No, please don't. I couldn't reply to your incredibly arrogant
messages anymore. After all, someone has to tell you that your
"L'Etat, c'est moi" attitude sucks. This is an open-source project,
remember?
- David
Am 26.11.2005 um 14:42 schrieb Jani Taskinen:
Can we PLEASE make this
Marcus Boerger schrieb:
> Hello Oliver,
>
> it doesn't matter to the compiler whether it is nonsense or not.
> The only thing that matters is whether i can write a correct
> lexer/parser for this without breaking stuff. Guys if we were requiring
> space around the ternary or anything else we don
David Zülke wrote:
> No, please don't. I couldn't reply to your incredibly arrogant messages
> anymore. After all, someone has to tell you that your "L'Etat, c'est
> moi" attitude sucks. This is an open-source project, remember?
>
Bark up another tree. Or, better yet, why don't you do Jani's wo
Sebastian Kugler wrote:
Forcing the use of brackets (instead of whitespaces) only for places
where you want to use namespace constants in ternaries is also
impossible?
exactly
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe, Senior Support Engineer.
MySQL AB, www.mysql.com
--
PHP Internals
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 14:58 +0100, Christopher Kunz wrote:
> David Zülke wrote:
> > No, please don't. I couldn't reply to your incredibly arrogant messages
> > anymore. After all, someone has to tell you that your "L'Etat, c'est
> > moi" attitude sucks. This is an open-source project, remember?
Marcus Boerger wrote:
PS: I'd rather have : for namespaces with the whitespace restriction for
? a:x : b:y than the confusing (escaping characters outside of a
string?) backslash.
And kill trillions of php scripts, how funny. Think before writing.
From Jessie's statements I was assuming that
Sara Golemon wrote:
> Is anyone working on something like this already?
I don't known what you exactly meaning, but I'm playing with 'The Spread
Toolkit' [1] a their PECL interface [2]. I was started research phase of
project only. The goal of my work is to create sessions handling across
mul
Yes, I remember. It was not for fun. I agree that this is a low
priority feature just now while many important issues are to be
solved.
On 26/11/05, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Marian,
>
> have a guess. Di we do this change for fun? Actually we found some nasty
> tricky pro
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
> Like the one you just committed couple of days ago? REVERT! :)
I merged the patch in question to the PHP_5_1 branch *after* PHP 5.1.0
had been rolled and *before* the release cycle for PHP 5.1.1 was
started.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebast
Marcus Boerger schrieb:
> And i'd say that people wanting namespaces are the minority.
The majority of people using PHP does not know what namespaces are
because they were never in a situation in which they needed them, hence
they do not "want" them.
--
Sebastian Bergmann
Sara Golemon wrote:
Will your proposal be met with resistence? Certainly. Such an
undertaking represents no small amount of effort and a no less pain when
the final BC break occurs.
No need to break BC! I have a solution. All we need is to introduce
$THAT superglobal object, plus couple of n
Pardon, but I'm not french. And open-source does not mean
it's democracy. I for one only count the votes of people who
actually do something. If you think that's arrogant, so be it.
--Jani
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, David Zülke wrote:
No, please don't. I couldn't reply to your inc
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:39:34 -0800, in php.internals
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rasmus Lerdorf) wrote:
>I think that is a pretty good idea actually. It's the uid matching that
>is the problem. Having a way to restrict which commands the exec
>functions can execute is sort of a separate thing that is s
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
Like the one you just committed couple of days ago? REVERT! :)
I merged the patch in question to the PHP_5_1 branch *after* PHP 5.1.0
had been rolled and *before* the release cycle for PHP 5.1.1 was
started.
Then you
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Marcus Boerger schrieb:
And i'd say that people wanting namespaces are the minority.
The majority of people using PHP does not know what namespaces are
because they were never in a situation in which they needed them, hence
they do not "want" th
No one project follows the same release methodoly, everyone uses what
works for them and the community around the project.
Ilia
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
You'll be a star in a circus.
But internals is certainly not a circus, so please keep your jokes about
yourself.
On 26.11.2005 18:44, Roman Ivanov wrote:
Sara Golemon wrote:
Will your proposal be met with resistence? Certainly. Such an
undertaking represents no small amount of effort and a no
Ever heard of Louis XIV.?
- David
Am 26.11.2005 um 16:39 schrieb Jani Taskinen:
Pardon, but I'm not french. And open-source does not mean
it's democracy. I for one only count the votes of people who
actually do something. If you think that's arrogant, so be it.
--Jani
On S
Hello Oliver,
Oliver Grätz wrote:
If I read Jessie correctly, the parser will throw an error now if the
usage is unclear with the ternary (a:b:c:d). So the real problem is when
namespace constants are not used but the parser thinks that he's reading
some:
$a = ($b)? c:d;
Are c and d constants
David Zülke wrote:
> Ever heard of Louis XIV.?
What's his CVS account? ;-)
Ilia
> - David
>
>
> Am 26.11.2005 um 16:39 schrieb Jani Taskinen:
>
>>
>> Pardon, but I'm not french. And open-source does not mean
>> it's democracy. I for one only count the votes of people who
>> actua
Hi Chris,
Christian Schneider wrote:
From Jessie's statements I was assuming that ONLY in the ternary case
you would need whitespaces/parens to disambiguate the expression. That
would break way less PHP scripts than, say, a core Date class ;-)
Yes, this is true, but still, I wouldn't be
Sebastian Bergmann schrieb:
> Marcus Boerger schrieb:
>
>>And i'd say that people wanting namespaces are the minority.
>
>
> The majority of people using PHP does not know what namespaces are
> because they were never in a situation in which they needed them, hence
> they do not "want" them.
Hi Edin, et al:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:59:16PM +0100, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
>
> PHP
> will produce parse error if you have short tags enabled when trying to
> parse xml, while with short tags disabled and asp tags enabled it parses
> them just fine which makes it sweet for making templating
Hi Peter:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:22:32AM +0100, Peter Brodersen wrote:
> I don't think anybody disagrees about this. I'm just curious about
> documenting some recommendations.
If you have some suggestions for documentation improvements, make a patch
against http://cvs.php.net/phpdoc/en/featu
Jessie Hernandez wrote:
We have two options here:
1) Do not allow constants in namespaces, just stick to functions and
classes.
2) Forget about this inconsistency.
I understand your point of view, but it seems crazy to me to use "\", an
operator that makes absolutely no sense at all and will
I'd also like to see the fix to ZendEngine2/zend_language_scanner.l
rolled in to this release, its a very annoying regression.
Scott
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> The attached patch is a possible solution to the date *crisis*, it
> renames the class to PhpDate to avoid any namespace conflicts with pe
Scott MacVicar wrote:
> I'd also like to see the fix to ZendEngine2/zend_language_scanner.l
> rolled in to this release, its a very annoying regression.
Yes, that is a problem, and we'll have it fixed in 5.1.1
Ilia
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: h
Hi,
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:57:45 -0500, in php.internals
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Convissor) wrote:
>If you have some suggestions for documentation improvements, make a patch
>against http://cvs.php.net/phpdoc/en/features/safe-mode.xml, post the
>patch on a website somewhere then open a docume
Agreed, the PECL bundle is still very useful to maintain for each release.
(as is the debug pack, so that debugging crashes becomes a possibility
for releases).
--Wez.
On 11/26/05, Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm.
>
> Is this expected to be a long-term change to the way we're making th
All,
What would you say if I managed to solve this problem, but that the
solution entailed changing the namespace separator to ":::"? The code
below works fine locally.
Is ":::" unacceptable? Personally, I think anything is better than using
"\", and ":::" is not bad for me. If not, which ch
This is funny... I was just about to write a mail and propose ":::".
So... +1 from me ;)
- David
Am 26.11.2005 um 21:10 schrieb Jessie Hernandez:
All,
What would you say if I managed to solve this problem, but that the
solution entailed changing the namespace separator to ":::"? The
co
BTW, "::" is out the question (yes, I did try it). It created ambiguity
in the case of calling a function in a namespace and calling a method of
a class in a namespace:
echo a::b::c();
The above can either mean "call function c in namespace b under
namespace a" or "call static method c of cla
I'd prefer ::: over \ for a namespace operator, even though it is
bordering on the "too-long" limit.
Ilia
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Ilia Alshanetsky schrieb:
> I'd prefer ::: over \ for a namespace operator, even though it is
> bordering on the "too-long" limit.
What about these:
PEAR:>Date
PEAR:-Date
OLLi
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
+1 from me. \ looks ugly ... like escaping something:)
On 26/11/05, David Zülke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is funny... I was just about to write a mail and propose ":::".
> So... +1 from me ;)
>
> - David
>
>
> Am 26.11.2005 um 21:10 schrieb Jessie Hernandez:
>
> > All,
> >
> > What would y
Hi Oliver,
Oliver Grätz wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky schrieb:
I'd prefer ::: over \ for a namespace operator, even though it is
bordering on the "too-long" limit.
What about these:
PEAR:>Date
PEAR:-Date
OLLi
I thought of these, but it'll break the following examples:
echo ( ( time() % 2
Oops, hit "send" too soon! As you saw, ":-" cannot be used, but ":>"
looks like a possibility. Does anyone see anything wrong with this
sequence? Personally, I'd prefer ":::", as ":>" looks weird, but then
again, it's less typing.
I'll put in whatever sequence is most accepted, except of cours
Pierre wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:50:04 -0600
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Beaver) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Pierre, you can do all the #ifdefs you want, this idea does not
>>prevent this :). In addition, the #ifdef has no effect on this idea.
>
>
>
> You do not get the main problem.
>
> - The ifdef
Hi all,
I have only one caveat with the \ separator, which is that it is a
little bit too similar to division with /, and can result in some
confusing code like:
The same issue exists with all colon based separators (that sounds bad
when read the wrong way...) because of the ternary operator, a
I personally don't like any of these, but I just thought of this one:
"%%". Don't think it'll cause any problems at all, and look at the code:
What do you think? ":::" is more intuitive for me, but "%%" is an
acceptable alternative...
Regards,
Jessie
Greg Beaver wrote:
Hi all,
I have
It seems to me that the only usable method of "ring fencing" core
classes for the long term is to use namespaces. However, the namespaces
feature is a fairly large one and obviously will not be in 5.1. We can
discuss its inclusion in 5.2, should it happen to come out, or in PHP
6, but we need
Hi, I've been following your conversations all day and think I might
have a nice idea for the namespace separator idea. Sorry to barge in
on your conversation but I think the following has value.
What about something like <- or <:: or even just <:
It makes sense to me because a namespace is akin
The only scripts that would break (far from "trillions") here would be
those where you had a space-less ternary statement comparing two
constants (NOT namespace constants -- they don't even exist yet), as
in the following case:
define('foo','odd');
define('bar','even');
$var = rand() % 2 == 1 ? fo
> Hi all,
>
> I have only one caveat with the \ separator, which is that it
> is a little bit too similar to division with /, and can
> result in some confusing code like:
>
> namespace name1 {
> class name2{}
> }
> define('name1', 1);
> define('name2', 2);
>
> $a = new name1\name2;
> $
Hi Mat,
Matt Friedman wrote:
Hi, I've been following your conversations all day and think I might
have a nice idea for the namespace separator idea. Sorry to barge in
on your conversation but I think the following has value.
What about something like <- or <:: or even just <:
It makes sense to
Hello,
I as a userland library author, would appreciate namespaces quite a
bit. Here is an idea:
namespace1..class()
$x = new MyApp..MemberOrder();
--
Best regards,
Jasonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 3:52:35 PM, you wrote:
GB>
::: is best. :> and <: look like my favorite smilies. No way I could
ever use them in code ;)
- David
Am 26.11.2005 um 22:39 schrieb Jessie Hernandez:
Hi Mat,
Matt Friedman wrote:
Hi, I've been following your conversations all day and think I might
have a nice idea for the namespace separ
MF>>Unless I'm missing something these symbols should not conflict with
MF>>other ones. They also have more a PHP "feel".
I wonder what "PHP feel" is in bunch of special symbols with meaning
entirely obscure to non-initiated... Why not {@ or <* then? They are nice
ASCII art too. And there are so
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 00:06 +0200, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> I wonder what "PHP feel" is in bunch of special symbols with meaning
> entirely obscure to non-initiated... Why not {@ or <* then? They are nice
> ASCII art too. And there are so many combinations of two special symbols,
> let's find
-> is crap because it is used for accessing object methods and
properties. Come on, guys. It is not that difficult. Think before you
write.
- David
Am 26.11.2005 um 23:16 schrieb Matthew C. Kavanagh:
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 00:06 +0200, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
I wonder what "PHP feel" is
Hello Matt,
bla!
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 10:19:18 PM, you wrote:
> Hi, I've been following your conversations all day and think I might
> have a nice idea for the namespace separator idea. Sorry to barge in
> on your conversation but I think the following has value.
> What about somethin
Hello Kevin,
bla!
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 10:35:51 PM, you wrote:
> The only scripts that would break (far from "trillions") here would be
> those where you had a space-less ternary statement comparing two
> constants (NOT namespace constants -- they don't even exist yet), as
> in the fol
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Matt,
bla!
LOL!
--
Jessie
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Don't let the identifiers collide, then.
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 23:23 +0100, David Zülke wrote:
> -> is crap because it is used for accessing object methods and
> properties. Come on, guys. It is not that difficult. Think before you
> write.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing L
Hello Stanislav,
i know that language it is call ed PerlHyPer :-)
marcus
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 11:06:17 PM, you wrote:
MF>>>Unless I'm missing something these symbols should not conflict with
MF>>>other ones. They also have more a PHP "feel".
> I wonder what "PHP feel" is in bunch of
The proposal is just stupid. It cannot get any more confusing and
inconsistent.
Am 26.11.2005 um 23:29 schrieb Matthew C. Kavanagh:
Don't let the identifiers collide, then.
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 23:23 +0100, David Zülke wrote:
-> is crap because it is used for accessing object methods and
I have to back Sebastian with what he said. Obviously the release methodology
currently applied does NOT work, neither for the project nor the community
around it.
Do it how ever you like - discuss whether it's legal to add new features on
HEAD only or on release branches like Jani said.
BUT:
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
