Joey Smith wrote:
Maybe I'm up in the night, but I've just opened 50728 because I discovered that
all
the PDO drivers had a hardcoded 0 where I would expect to see the
driver-specific
error - a user reported this in ##PHP on Freenode and I take a stab at writing
the
patches that would let the
In Online Document say's:
Users may not change the array itself from the callback function. e.g.
Add/delete elements, unset elements, etc. If the array that
array_walk() is applied to is changed, the behavior of this function
is undefined, and unpredictable.
So I'm use Use Optional param( [, mixed
Hello,
At Debian we are planning to include PHP 5.3 in Squeeze, the next stable
release. As such, I would like to know for example when we could expect
5.3.2 and 5.3.3 to be released.
On a slightly different topic, I'd like to express that I would like to
improve the communication between us (
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> At Debian we are planning to include PHP 5.3 in Squeeze, the next stable
> release. As such, I would like to know for example when we could expect
> 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 to be released.
5.3.2 is on the way, but not sure when exactly it will be released.
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:32 PM, mm w <0xcafef...@gmail.com> wrote:
> cast is not needed in PHP
>
> i 'd rather be more interesting in
>
> class Obj {
> function __catch($data, $type) {
> //$type [ static_method, method, get_property, set_property]
> if (observed &
This might be better served by taking it to php-general, because I don't
think you need to pin your question so hard to the behaviour of
array_walk(). Here's a quick example of (if I understood your question
correctly) how you might solve it using array_udiff_uassoc and 5.3's new
'closure' syntax (
Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>
>> At Debian we are planning to include PHP 5.3 in Squeeze, the next stable
>> release. As such, I would like to know for example when we could expect
>> 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 to be released.
>
> 5.3.2 is on the way, but not sure w
Hi again,
Disclaimer: although discussions about this topic tend to be heated (and
hated) this is not the usual short_open_tag thread. Please refrain from
talking about other previous proposals and whether short_open_tag should be
dropped or not.
As mentioned on my other post, at Debian we are
Raphael Geissert wrote:
> However, we would like to contribute in the quest to make applications stop
> using short_open_tag. To do so, we have decided to throw an E_DEPRECATED
> warning when an application makes use of short_open_tag. The current
> implementation can be found at [1].
>
> How d
don't worry it's only for people who are working with MVC and
RootObject structure, there is too much magics already and __cast is
not needed at all,
as we cannot monkey patch to add an observer on itself, a nice
solution should have a catchable object so __catch any calls
function __catch($data,
How does this have *anything* to do with the discussion at hand?
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:09 PM, mm w <0xcafef...@gmail.com> wrote:
> don't worry it's only for people who are working with MVC and
> RootObject structure, there is too much magics already and __cast is
> not needed at all,
> as we c
the multiplication of magic, the pointed point, need to read more carefully
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Eddie Drapkin wrote:
> How does this have *anything* to do with the discussion at hand?
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:09 PM, mm w <0xcafef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> don't worry it's only for
What you're proposing is just forcing __call, _callStatic, __get and
__set into a single method, which does nothing to reduce the amount of
magic, only obfuscate it. And it certainly offers no alternative to
"__cast", at least not that I can see.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:11 PM, mm w <0xcafef...@
I am not forcing anything, it's already there, that's definitely a
more useful magic, if people would add a new one, __cast is not
critical, catchable objects are __catch even if exists, so my point I
'd rather see useful requests than a unseful one e.g __cast
from my perspective __toString and __
Eddie Drapkin wrote:
What you're proposing is just forcing __call, _callStatic, __get and
__set into a single method, which does nothing to reduce the amount of
magic, only obfuscate it. And it certainly offers no alternative to
"__cast", at least not that I can see.
I agree, moving all magi
Joey Smith wrote:
This might be better served by taking it to php-general, because I don't
think you need to pin your question so hard to the behaviour of
array_walk(). Here's a quick example of (if I understood your question
correctly) how you might solve it using array_udiff_uassoc and 5.3's
I don't move any magics,I am worried about your knowledge of php,
there's people to give you money ? weird, set get call are only call
when something doesn't exist catch or catch-able concept is to be able
to catch any existing calls no the dynamic ones.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Clint Pri
I don't move any magics, I'm worried your knowledge of social skills? Theirs
people be your friends? Weird
On Jan 12, 2010 9:10 PM, "mm w" <0xcafef...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't move any magics,I am worried about your knowledge of php,
there's people to give you money ? weird, set get call are onl
:-D, without any magic, I am sorry if I hurt you I though you were
tougher than a cookie, don't worry about my friends I have plenty on
face-cooked, but for God Sake I am still eating alone at noon 8-)
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Chris Stockton
wrote:
> I don't move any magics, I'm worrie
19 matches
Mail list logo
