Hi,
sorry if I missed something but is there any reason to not use keyword "use"?
IMHO allowing keywords in class, method, function, etc. names brings
more confusion then value.
On 10/23/07, Gregory Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> >> Hold off for a bit - I may hav
yeah. let's just go for "use".
David
Am 23.10.2007 um 11:08 schrieb Giedrius D:
Hi,
sorry if I missed something but is there any reason to not use
keyword "use"?
IMHO allowing keywords in class, method, function, etc. names brings
more confusion then value.
On 10/23/07, Gregory Beave
Giedrius D wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry if I missed something but is there any reason to not use keyword "use"?
>
> IMHO allowing keywords in class, method, function, etc. names brings
> more confusion then value.
>
The same confusion that is brought about by allowing keywords as
variable names?
clas
Any chance we could get bug http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=38770 fixed
before 5.2.5 is final? It looks like reverting this change would do it.
http://cvs.php.net/viewvc.cgi/php-src/ext/standard/pack.c?r1=1.57.2.5.2.3&r2=1.57.2.5.2.4
Example:
Linux mtest1 2.6.20-gentoo-r8 #1 SMP Thu Jun 28 10:3
On 10/23/07, Gregory Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The same confusion that is brought about by allowing keywords as
> variable names?
>
> class Test
> {
> public $class;
> }
>
> $a = new Test;
> $a->class = 1;
> ?>
>
> Is this next example any more confusing?
>
> class Test
> {
> fu
Giedrius D wrote:
> On 10/23/07, Gregory Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The same confusion that is brought about by allowing keywords as
>> variable names?
>>
>> > class Test
>> {
>> public $class;
>> }
>>
>> $a = new Test;
>> $a->class = 1;
>> ?>
>>
>> Is this next example any more
On 10/23/07, Gregory Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > namespace (Foo::Bar);
> > import(new new);
> >
> parse error - of all reserved words, only "namespace" and "import" are
> allowed as class names in my patch
Sorry missed that. Somehow I thought this applies only to functions.
Anyway allo
What's the chance that there will be a better multicore cpu
support throught a better fork functionality in PHP 6?
Today pcntl_fork is available only on Unix/Linux cgi versions.
Thanks, Markus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub
What's the chance that there will be a better multicore cpu
support throught a better fork functionality in PHP 6?
Today pcntl_fork is available only on Unix/Linux cgi versions.
Thanks, Markus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub
What's the chance that there will be a better multicore cpu
support throught a better fork functionality in PHP 6?
Today pcntl_fork is available only on Unix/Linux cgi versions.
If you are talking about running multiple threads inside same PHP
process, then chances are not very high, unless som
Markus L. wrote:
> What's the chance that there will be a better multicore cpu
> support throught a better fork functionality in PHP 6?
> Today pcntl_fork is available only on Unix/Linux cgi versions.
This question makes very little sense to me. How is pcntl_fork related
to multicore cpu usage?
On 24.10.2007 02:11, Lars Westermann wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've had a long mail-dialogue with Wez regarding bugfixes for the Interbase
> modules (the old interbase and the new PDO version). In the PHP_5_3 branch I
> have worked on the files mentioned below. As these files aren't changed from
> the PHP_
Hi
For ibase_query.c the unified diff is:
diff -u -r1.23.2.1.2.10 ibase_query.c
--- ibase_query.c 7 Jun 2007 08:59:00 - 1.23.2.1.2.10
+++ ibase_query.c 23 Oct 2007 18:18:28 -
@@ -144,8 +144,13 @@
}
if (ib_query->stmt) {
IBDEBUG("Dropping statement handle (free_query)...");
- if (isc_dsql_
Unified diff for ext/pdo_firebird/php_pdo_firebird_int.h:
diff -u -r1.10.2.1.2.1 php_pdo_firebird_int.h
--- php_pdo_firebird_int.h 1 Jan 2007 09:36:04 - 1.10.2.1.2.1
+++ php_pdo_firebird_int.h 18 Oct 2007 19:52:09 -
@@ -31,6 +31,10 @@
#define PDO_FB_DIALECT 3
+#define PDO_FB_DEF_DAT
ext/pdo_firebird/pdo_firebird.c:
diff -u -r1.4.2.3.2.1.2.1 pdo_firebird.c
--- pdo_firebird.c 27 Sep 2007 18:00:42 - 1.4.2.3.2.1.2.1
+++ pdo_firebird.c 18 Oct 2007 19:42:47 -
@@ -55,6 +55,10 @@
PHP_MINIT_FUNCTION(pdo_firebird) /* {{{ */
{
+ REGISTER_PDO_CLASS_CONST_LONG("FB_ATTR_DAT
ext/pdo_firebird/firebird_driver.c:
diff -u -r1.17.2.2.2.4 firebird_driver.c
--- firebird_driver.c 27 Feb 2007 03:28:16 - 1.17.2.2.2.4
+++ firebird_driver.c 18 Oct 2007 20:01:47 -
@@ -114,6 +114,16 @@
RECORD_ERROR(dbh);
}
+ if (H->date_format) {
+ efree(H->date_format);
+ }
+ if
ext/pdo_firebird/firebird_statement.c:
diff -u -r1.18.2.1.2.5 firebird_statement.c
--- firebird_statement.c 27 Feb 2007 03:04:40 - 1.18.2.1.2.5
+++ firebird_statement.c 18 Oct 2007 19:52:35 -
@@ -170,43 +170,11 @@
col->maxlen = var->sqllen;
col->namelen = var->aliasname_length;
col-
Hi, This was posted by the author of nginx (http://nginx.net/) a high
performance web-server/reverse proxy on the nginx mailing list
http://php-fpm.anight.org/
Pages are primarily in Russian so if somebody can read/comment/blog
about it, would be very much appreciated
Regards, Yusuf
--
Yusuf Go
Seems fine to me. Sara?
-Andrei
http://10fathoms.org/vu - daily photoblog
On Oct 16, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:
With thanks to Sara we looked at OnUpdateUTF8String to access a
php.ini value in OCI8 in PHP 6.
One of our engineers sent me a proposed patch for zend_ini.c in PHP6
On 24.10.2007 06:07, Yusuf Goolamabbas wrote:
> Hi, This was posted by the author of nginx (http://nginx.net/) a high
> performance web-server/reverse proxy on the nginx mailing list
>
> http://php-fpm.anight.org/
>
> Pages are primarily in Russian so if somebody can read/comment/blog
> about it,
On 24.10.2007 02:30, Lars Westermann wrote:
> Hi
>
> For ibase_query.c the unified diff is:
Please don't include diffs into the message body (you can try applying it now
yourself to see why).
It's also become completely unreadable, especially the first part of it.
And some comments on WHY the di
Gregory Beaver wrote:
> Giedrius D wrote:
>> On 10/23/07, Gregory Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Anyway my main question was: is there any reason not to use keyword "use"?
> The only reason for me is that "use" implies some kind of autoloading,
> as I suggested in one of my other mails. Th
22 matches
Mail list logo
