David Muir wrote:
Personally I think that the main issue is that we silently convert $foo['bar']
to $foo[0] for strings, which imo rarely the intended behavior and doesn't
really makes much sense (except that the offset expects the index to be int,
and this is how we type juggle between string an
Hi!
That would help a lot ... this is not a problem of "so the developer can fix his
code" but rather so we can fix legacy code which other non-developers are
currently using happily ... If *I* had written the code I would not have done it
the way it is currently structured, but I'm not about to
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 3:41 AM, David Muir wrote:
> On 24/11/11 12:44, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:38 AM, David Muir wrote:
>
>> Just to clarify, the changes introduced in 5.4 will result in the
>> following:
>>
>> >
>> $string = 'foo';
>> $array = array(
>>'foo'
Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
That would help a lot ... this is not a problem of "so the developer can fix his
code" but rather so we can fix legacy code which other non-developers are
currently using happily ... If *I* had written the code I would not have done it
the way it is currently structured
Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
I will check this against a vanilla version, as there is a chance that either
dotdeb(less likely) or suhosin patched something.
I had a look, my SUSE boxes have suhosin on still, but the 5.3 test machine is
running windows without it ...
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
I will check this against a vanilla version, as there is a chance that either
dotdeb(less likely) or suhosin patched something.
I had a look, my SUSE boxes have suhosin on still, but the 5.3 test machine is
running windows without it ...
5.4 machine even ... the SUSE bo
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> That would help a lot ... this is not a problem of "so the developer can
>>> fix his
>>> code" but rather so we can fix legacy code which other non-developers are
>>> currently using happily ... If *I* ha
On 24 November 2011 01:38, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> But neither is introducing a potential bomb of the kind that the 'date'
>> saga
>> created. The problem this change IS causing is likely to hit many live
>> sites
>
> The claim that many live sites actually regularly use string multiple st
> -Original Message-
> From: Gustavo Lopes [mailto:glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt]
> Sent: 23 November 2011 22:31
>
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:06:09 -, Pierre Joye
>
> wrote:
>
> > The fact that we have reports here showing code not working
> anymore
> > because of this change tells me that it
>
>
>> It gives me false in 5.3.6. Using it outside of isset() results in the
>> fatal error.
>>
>
> hm.
>
> tyrael@thor:~$ php -r '$string =
> "foo";isset($string["foo"]["bar"]["baz"]["0"]);';
> PHP Fatal error: Cannot use string offset as an array in Command line
> code on line 1
> tyrael@thor:~
2011/11/24 :
> On 24 November 2011 01:38, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> But neither is introducing a potential bomb of the kind that the 'date'
>>> saga
>>> created. The problem this change IS causing is likely to hit many live
>>> sites
>>
>> The claim that many live sites actually regularl
2011/11/24 :
> On 24 November 2011 01:38, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I hadn't the opportunity to install php 5.4 to test this, so I was
> wondering if someone could test how would this code behave ?
>
> ###
> if (
> !isset( $widget_options['dashboard_incoming_links'] )
> || !isset( $
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:05 AM, wrote:
> On 24 November 2011 01:38, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >> But neither is introducing a potential bomb of the kind that the 'date'
> >> saga
> >> created. The problem this change IS causing is likely to hit many live
> >> sites
> >
> > The claim t
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Ford, Mike wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gustavo Lopes [mailto:glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt]
> > Sent: 23 November 2011 22:31
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:06:09 -, Pierre Joye
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The fact that we have reports here showing
On 23 November 2011 18:37, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Ralph:
>
> From where I'm sitting, I can see a few sane alternatives (there may
> be more, but here are the options I can see):
>
> Option 1. Remove signature checking from constructors all together.
> (I don't care for this, but whatever). Add
Just a quick note for this issue.
If I remember correctly, PHP is working this way at least from PHP 3.0.x.
$a[123] // integer index
$a['123'] // integer index
$a['123 abc'] // string index
$a['123.123'] // string index
Automatic string to integer conversion only happened if index string
has numer
Hi Johannes,
Any plan to package the RC today? it has been a while since the last RC.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RC2 is in the tags, so I guess its because it hasnt hit all the mirrors yet
2011/11/24 Pierre Joye
> Hi Johannes,
>
> Any plan to package the RC today? it has been a while since the last RC.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Pierre
>
> @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
>
> --
> PHP I
2011/11/24 Keloran :
> RC2 is in the tags, so I guess its because it hasnt hit all the mirrors yet
No, there is no 5.3.9 RC2 tag
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 12:22 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
>
> Any plan to package the RC today? it has been a while since the last RC.
>
> Cheers,
Yes, that's the plan. I tried doing it last week but didn't reach you.
Will be on IRC in a moment.
johannes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Ru
sorry, i read the RC2 part, not the 5.3.9 part
my bad
2011/11/24 Johannes Schlüter
> On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 12:22 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
> > Hi Johannes,
> >
> > Any plan to package the RC today? it has been a while since the last RC.
> >
> > Cheers,
>
> Yes, that's the plan. I tried doing it
Something else to consider:
Right now, Constructors are checked on interfaces. See the following
two examples:
http://codepad.viper-7.com/9IAGNP
http://codepad.viper-7.com/edokLi
So right now, interfaces are enforcing constructors fully (in 5.3).
Which makes more sense: Having abstract methods
On 23 November 2011 01:50, Daniel Convissor
wrote:
> Hi Folks:
>
> I just stumbled upon a regression in 5.4. In an array, a sub-sub-key of
> an existing key is now returning a letter of the value indexed by the
> main key. I'm raising it here so it doesn't get lost.
>
> https://bugs.php.net/bug.
Thanks Ferenc
Everything looks ok http://codepad.viper-7.com/JTXsGK
Devis
On 24 November 2011 10:31, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It gives me false in 5.3.6. Using it outside of isset() results in the
>>> fatal error.
>>>
>>
>> hm.
>>
>> tyrael@thor:~$ php -r '$string =
>> "foo";isset($stri
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:04 PM, wrote:
> Thanks Ferenc
>
> Everything looks ok http://codepad.viper-7.com/JTXsGK
>
> Devis
>
>
here are the corner cases:
5.3: http://codepad.viper-7.com/nPLorU
5.4: http://codepad.viper-7.com/MUdAlc
as you can see from the 4th example, your test will have an une
I've committed support for UTS #46 to 5.4 and trunk.
See http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=319770
--
Gustavo Lopes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
hi Gustavo!
Thanks!
can you add a note to UPGRADING and in the bug report please?
Cheers,
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> I've committed support for UTS #46 to 5.4 and trunk.
>
> See http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=319770
>
> --
> Gustavo Lopes
>
> --
On 11/23/2011 12:13 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
Richard Quadling wrote:
I agree with Daniel on this.
Just looking for any test relating to isset() to see what tests will
now fail.
So it's not just me :)
I am seeing this break real world projects and can't see a easy way to
fix the break. There is
On 11/24/2011 12:12 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 11/23/2011 12:13 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>> Richard Quadling wrote:
>>> I agree with Daniel on this.
>>>
>>> Just looking for any test relating to isset() to see what tests will
>>> now fail.
>>
>> So it's not just me :)
>> I am seeing this break r
Hello,
The PHP team released the second release candidates of PHP 5.3.9 and PHP
5.4.0 today:
You can find the packages for PHP 5.3.9RC2 here:
http://downloads.php.net/johannes
and respectively for PHP 5.4.0RC2:
http://downloads.php.net/stas
The Windows team provides windows binaries f
On 11/23/2011 09:24 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
*snip*
Now, with traits we could add a trait for each interface which proxies
back to `$this->object`. But that's still a lot of duplication and
hard-coding.
I've run into this issue before myself. It's especially a problem when
you're specify
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 11/23/2011 12:13 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>
>> Richard Quadling wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Daniel on this.
>>>
>>> Just looking for any test relating to isset() to see what tests will
>>> now fail.
>>>
>>
>> So it's not just me :)
>> I am
Hi!
This is going to be a huge problem for Drupal. Drupal uses deep
associative array structures a lot, by design. That means we isset() or
empty() on arrays a lot. I haven't had a chance to test it yet, but I
see this change breaking, um, A LOT. And as Daniel noted, the fix is to
turn one l
hi Rasmus,
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> I had a quick look through the Drupal code. I don't see a single place
> that this is done where a deeply nested array index is applied to a
> string. I think you are misunderstanding what has changed here.
We are leading to ye
On 11/24/2011 01:08 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi Rasmus,
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
>> I had a quick look through the Drupal code. I don't see a single place
>> that this is done where a deeply nested array index is applied to a
>> string. I think you are misunde
Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
Did you managed to read the whole thread?
I'm asking because there were lot of confusion about the actual impact of
this problem, and Lester particularly seemed confused.
"There is nothing really wrong with the current code except that the sub
keys have yet to be populated."
Hi!
For all the people saying, "Revert". You guys realize that also means we
revert all the array dereferencing we added elsewhere, right? That
includes function array dereferencing which pretty most everyone has
been clamoring for for years.
I think you're underestimating it. We'd have to rev
Hi,
2011/11/24 Richard Quadling :
> On 23 November 2011 01:50, Daniel Convissor
> wrote:
>> Hi Folks:
>>
>> I just stumbled upon a regression in 5.4. In an array, a sub-sub-key of
>> an existing key is now returning a letter of the value indexed by the
>> main key. I'm raising it here so it doe
Hi,
2011/11/24 Rasmus Lerdorf :
> On 11/24/2011 01:08 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> hi Rasmus,
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>
>>> I had a quick look through the Drupal code. I don't see a single place
>>> that this is done where a deeply nested array index is applied
Hi!
I've committed support for UTS #46 to 5.4 and trunk.
See http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=319770
Could you please also fix the protos on the functions? And updating the
docs would be ideal :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(
Hi all,
I should think twice before seding mail. "abc" as array index is
converted to 0 since it's not a integer. So with current code is
behave consistently with regards to string to long conversion.
However,
PHP 5.3
php -r '$s = "abc"; var_dump($s[0]["bar"]);'
PHP Fatal error: Cannot use stri
On 11/24/2011 01:44 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I should think twice before seding mail. "abc" as array index is
> converted to 0 since it's not a integer. So with current code is
> behave consistently with regards to string to long conversion.
>
> However,
>
> PHP 5.3
> php -r '$s = "
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I should think twice before seding mail. "abc" as array index is
> converted to 0 since it's not a integer. So with current code is
> behave consistently with regards to string to long conversion.
>
> However,
>
> PHP 5.3
> php -
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 11/24/2011 01:44 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I should think twice before seding mail. "abc" as array index is
> > converted to 0 since it's not a integer. So with current code is
> > behave consistently with regards to s
2011/11/25 Rasmus Lerdorf :
> On 11/24/2011 01:44 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I should think twice before seding mail. "abc" as array index is
>> converted to 0 since it's not a integer. So with current code is
>> behave consistently with regards to string to long conversion.
>>
>> How
>
>
>> > Isn't it better to raise notice for accessing string by string index?
>> > There is no use to allowing string index access to strings. I think
>> > raising notice is feasible. Isn't it?
>>
>> String index access is still required since they are often numeric
>> strings. We could add a noti
On 11/24/2011 02:58 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Larry Garfieldwrote:
On 11/23/2011 12:13 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
Richard Quadling wrote:
I agree with Daniel on this.
Just looking for any test relating to isset() to see what tests will
now fail.
So it's not
On 11/24/2011 02:03 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> Generally $foo, bar, and baz will all be arrays, and if they're not it
> means someone else had a bug somewhere. Of course, Drupal module
> developers never have bugs in their code that accidentally puts a string
> where they should have put an array
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 11/24/2011 02:58 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Larry
>> Garfield
>> >wrote:
>>
>> On 11/23/2011 12:13 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>>>
>>> Richard Quadling wrote:
I agree with Daniel on this.
>>>
Hi internals,
I've written a RFC about the optimization of the autoloader error handling.
Please take a moment to review the RFC and post any questions, suggestions or
concerns here.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/autoloader_error_handling
Cheers,
Christian
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Developm
Hi all,
Just FYI
find ../php-src-5.3/Zend/ -name "*.[ch]" | xargs grep -n "Cannot use
string offset as an array" | wc -l111
I thought there are much less lines to raise notice for string offset
access, but it isn't. It almost everywhere in vm. Now I understand
the reason why Stats and Rusmus car
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 22:44:46 -, Yasuo Ohgaki
wrote:
find ../php-src-5.3/Zend/ -name "*.[ch]" | xargs grep -n "Cannot use
string offset as an array" | wc -l111
I thought there are much less lines to raise notice for string offset
access, but it isn't. It almost everywhere in vm. Now I und
On 24 November 2011 21:48, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 11/24/2011 01:44 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I should think twice before seding mail. "abc" as array index is
>> converted to 0 since it's not a integer. So with current code is
>> behave consistently with regards to string to long
Hi all,
I've just committed the patch to trunk.
I'll update NEWS file and docs.
If anyone notice problem, please let me know.
Regards,
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohg...@ohgaki.net
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Friday, November 25, 2011 08:23 AM, de...@lucato.it wrote:
On 24 November 2011 21:48, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 11/24/2011 01:44 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Hi all,
I should think twice before seding mail. "abc" as array index is
converted to 0 since it's not a integer. So with current code is
Hi Ferenc:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:54:24PM +0100, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> > I would vote for allowing only numbers in the string index/offset: [0-9]+
>
> By "allowing" I meant that we should trigger the notice if the string index
> contains anything else than numbers.
I agree with this approac
Hi Stas:
> I have no idea why Drupal would use side effects
> of string offset bugs to distinguish between arrays and strings
They're not trying to distinguish between strings and arrays. People
using this syntax are trying to see if a particular array element is
populated. In the past, it happ
Hi Rasmus:
> Yes, no change in any of that. In your usage, the case that behaves
> differently in 5.4 was actually a fatal error in 5.3, so chances are
> pretty good you don't have too many of these.
Things only go fatal in 5.3 under some circumstances. Doing isset()
does not:
5.3.9RC3-dev ST
Hi Anthony:
> isset($foo['bar'][1]['baz']) && is_array($foo['bar'][1])
>
> You don't need to check each level. Only the one above the key you're
> looking at.
Excellent thinking. One hitch... that goes fatal in 5.3 if $foo is a string.
Here's how to write the test so it works the same way unde
> Excellent thinking. One hitch... that goes fatal in 5.3 if $foo is a string.
> Here's how to write the test so it works the same way under 5.3 and 5.4:
Correct. However, it's worth noting that it only goes fatal if $foo is a string.
So as long as you know that the root variable is an array, it
2011/11/25 Yasuo Ohgaki :
> Hi all,
>
> I've just committed the patch to trunk.
> I'll update NEWS file and docs.
> If anyone notice problem, please let me know.
NEWS and docs are added.
I didn't edit docs for a long time.
Current doc system is excellent!
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohg...@ohgaki.net
--
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:28:35 +0100, Christian Kaps wrote:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/autoloader_error_handling
>
Throwing an exception or fatal error in an autoloader
absolutely does not make any sense in my eyes.
Projects doing this should step back and think a
minute about what they dare.
62 matches
Mail list logo
