On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:46 PM, LEW21 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sometimes call time pass by reference is useful, for example when you
> want to make it possible to omit an param (normally passed by
> reference) by setting null. With no call time pass by reference,
> programmers are required to
Hi,
There is a use case for the function allowing *explicitly* call-time pass by
reference, because the function works both ways in subtly different ways.
I have some libraries where I had to have variations of the functions like
"AbcByRefr()" and "Abc()", because of this inflexibility.
In
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> $a = [[1, 2], [3, 4], 5, 6];
>
> Proposed twice at least, but PHP developer community doesn't seem to like
> it.
Many of us like it. And the end users I know like it too.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
http://blog.thepi
On 22.05.2008 13:46, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
$a = [[1, 2], [3, 4], 5, 6];
Proposed twice at least, but PHP developer community doesn't seem to like
it.
Many of us like it. And the end users I know like it too.
Hey Andrei,
UG(unicode) checks are still secondary I think - they don't prevent us
from doing tests and moving forward, although cleaning them up would be
nice.
Cleaning them up would make it possible to find and fix the bugs we already
know are there ;) There don't seem to be too many, but
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22.05.2008 13:46, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
$a = [[1, 2], [3, 4], 5, 6];
>>>
>>> Proposed twice at least, but PHP de
2008/5/22, Alexey Zakhlestin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:46 PM, LEW21 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sometimes call time pass by reference is useful, for example when you
> > want to make it possible to omit an param (normally passed by
> > reference) by setting null. With
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:51 PM, LEW21 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/5/22, Alexey Zakhlestin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:46 PM, LEW21 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Sometimes call time pass by reference is useful, for example when you
>> > want to make it possible to o
Hi,
Actually PHP ignores default values on parameters followed by required ones.
You can't fetch the default value even via Reflection.
This is easily detected at compile time so I wonder why the compiler doesn't
warn.
Regards,
Stan Vassilev
what stops you from declaring:
function someFu
Hi Stan,
There is a use case for the function allowing *explicitly* call-time pass
by reference, because the function works both ways in subtly different
ways.
This RFC isn't about whether or not this behaviour should be deprecated. It
simply recommends that a warning be thrown by default in
2008/5/22 Stan Vassilev | FM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi,
>
> Actually PHP ignores default values on parameters followed by required ones.
> You can't fetch the default value even via Reflection.
> This is easily detected at compile time so I wonder why the compiler doesn't
> warn.
>
> Regards,
> S
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 12:33 +0200, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
> Agreed, we should simply go through a vote and be done with that.
Vote until all are annoyed and don't vote against it anymore just to
stop voting? ("it's less annoying to have it than vote about it every
two months") There was some vo
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Johannes Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 12:33 +0200, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
>> Agreed, we should simply go through a vote and be done with that.
>
> Vote until all are annoyed and don't vote against it anymore just to
> stop voting
Hi,
Please notice that I said "followed by required ones".
function foo($a = null, $b) {}
The above definition is allowed and the compiler won't complain, but
actually that "= null" is completely lost, including in Reflection.
Regards,
Stan Vassilev
2008/5/22 Stan Vassilev | FM <[EMAIL P
On 22 May 2008, at 07:29, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Johannes Schlüter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 12:33 +0200, "Pierre Joye" wrote:
Agreed, we should simply go through a vote and be done with that.
Vote until all are annoyed and don't vot
Hi!
Many of us like it. And the end users I know like it too.
You don't need to convince me :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe,
Steph Fox wrote:
> What concerns me at this point is that we could and should be telling
> PHP users how to future-proof their code during the move from PHP 4 to
> PHP 5. If we can get a fix on that now and get word out, we'll have made
> their future migration path *much* smoother.
As far as I ca
[ forgot to sent that to the list ]
Hi Philip,
Am Dienstag, den 20.05.2008, 12:55 -0700 schrieb Philip Olson:
[...]
> PHP 5.3 is approaching fast, so let's conclude our dealings with
> magical quotes... this should be the last time. Please have a look at
> the following RFC and discuss it wit
> cu, Lars
> P.S.: Silence agrees doesn't work, silence is void.
Well, if silence is void: TAKE IT OFF!!! (+1 ... once again on this subject)
--
Slan,
David
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 22.05.2008, 18:23 +0300 schrieb Stan Vassilev | FM:
[...]
> function foo($a = null, $b) {}
Isn't that a typical case for throwing an E_STRICT warning or is is not
possible to check that efficiently in the engine?
cu, Lars
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital s
Hi David,
Am Donnerstag, den 22.05.2008, 18:14 -0400 schrieb David Coallier:
> > cu, Lars
> > P.S.: Silence agrees doesn't work, silence is void.
>
> Well, if silence is void: TAKE IT OFF!!! (+1 ... once again on this #subject)
You've spotted that the proposal is not about the question if they
s
Lars Strojny wrote:
[ forgot to sent that to the list ]
Hi Philip,
Am Dienstag, den 20.05.2008, 12:55 -0700 schrieb Philip Olson:
[...]
PHP 5.3 is approaching fast, so let's conclude our dealings with
magical quotes... this should be the last time. Please have a look at
the following RFC an
PHP 5.3 is approaching fast, so let's conclude our dealings with
magical quotes... this should be the last time. Please have a look at
the following RFC and discuss it within this thread.
Magic Quotes in PHP 5.3 and beyond
- http://wiki.php.net/rfc/magicquotes
It recommends changes to both
Hi Rasmus,
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lars Strojny wrote:
>>
>> [ forgot to sent that to the list ]
>>
>> Hi Philip,
>>
>> Am Dienstag, den 20.05.2008, 12:55 -0700 schrieb Philip Olson:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> PHP 5.3 is approaching fast, so let's conclud
Hi,
Just making sure I understood it well. Get isn't deprecated (good), set is
(good), but what happens if I try to set magic quotes runtime *off* if it
was *on* from the config.
I couldn't see anything about the PHP config setting being ignored/removed
or throwing error in the RFC.
For c
Not sure we really reached a conclusion. I think it was inconclusive and people
got tired.
As I've stated in the past in general I don't like the ability to do things in
more than one way but in this case I think the advantages of the cleaner syntax
outweigh the fact that we'd have two ways. I'
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Not sure we really reached a conclusion. I think it was inconclusive and people
got tired.
As I've stated in the past in general I don't like the ability to do things in
more than one way but in this case I think the advantages of the cleaner syntax
outweigh the fact that
+1 for this. Just clean the code once and for all.
2008/5/23 Lars Strojny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [ forgot to sent that to the list ]
>
> Hi Philip,
>
> Am Dienstag, den 20.05.2008, 12:55 -0700 schrieb Philip Olson:
> [...]
> > PHP 5.3 is approaching fast, so let's conclude our dealings with
> > m
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:09 AM, Lars Strojny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why should we leave get_magic_quotes_gpc()? If someone wants to be
> backwards compatible, just use
Excuse me? The users should change their code to be forward compatible?
We should ofcourse make it easier for our users and
29 matches
Mail list logo
