On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM, John Crenshaw wrote:
> OK everyone, it seems that some people have forgotten or missed the
> original agreement that this thread started with. There is a communication
> disconnect ("strict typing" means horribly different things to different
> people right now). P
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:58 PM, John Crenshaw wrote:
> *From:* Adam Richardson [mailto:simples...@gmail.com]
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM, John Crenshaw
> wrote:
>
> OK everyone, it seems that some people have forgotten or missed the
> original agreement that thi
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Kris,
>
> If we've agreed that strict typing is bad, why is it even showing on the
> discussion here? Calling it 'firm' or 'strong' doesn't make a difference.
> If it errors out or throws an exception (which BTW is out of the question
> for
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> never heard of that one before.
>
> for example, running
> for($i=0;$i<100;$i++){
> $foo="foo_".$i;
> ${$foo}->bar = 123;
> }
> echo "done";
>
> gives me 100 E_STRICT, but still executes just fine and prints "done" at
> the end.
> the onl
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Only on a new E_STRICT. Even with E_STRICT off by default, custom error
> handlers are still called, and I think Lester said that turning E_STRICT
> off made it work. So if this is the cause, then it has nothing to do
> with E_STRICT being i
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
> 2012.09.04. 18:58, "Rasmus Lerdorf" ezt írta:
>
>
>>
>> On 09/04/2012 09:36 AM, Adam Richardson wrote:
>> > I think Ferenc is correct in that this sounds like there's a custom
>>
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Adam Richardson wrote:
>>
>> I was second-guessing my recall I had a similar issue way back, after
>> Rasmus pointed out that the custom error handler is called even if
>> E_STRICT is off. However, I just looked b
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Joomla doesn't use either anyway, and neither do a number of the other sites
> I've been porting, but we still get problems.
Well, just to be sure, have you searched the entire codebase of one of
the existing sites experiencing the issues for
se of that functionality in my framework. However,
It sounds like this is going to cause a fatal error in PHP6. Is this
in fact true? And, if the behavior is going to change, can somebody
explain what the impetus for this change was?
Thank you very much for your time,
Adam
Adam Richardso
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Tedd Sperling wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Jonathan Eagle wrote:
> Jonathan:
>
> No offense to your routine, but you may want to review this:
>
> http://sperling.com/php/authorization/log-on.php
>
> If anyone finds an error, please post.
>
After successfu
Looks very promising !!!
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
> Cesar D. Rodas wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Have you guys checked this PHP to C++ converter from the Facebook People?
>>
>> http://developers.facebook.com/news.php?blog=1&story=358
>>
>
> Very interesting... I heard abo
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 01:47 11/08/2010, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> For the record: I consider the current implementation as (one of) the
>>> biggest mistakes in the last ten years.
>>>
>>
>> I agree completely. The fact that obvious absence of consens
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I think by now, whatever you think on strict typing/typehints, it is clear
> to everybody that there's no consensus about this feature, and with Rasmus,
> Zeev & Andi, along with many others, being against it, as of now it can not
> b
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Thomas Hruska wrote:
> On 11/11/2010 3:23 PM, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Jonah H. Harris> >wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Philip Olson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I just registered for Wiki access and am waiting for the ac
+1 Disabling magic quotes (off by default) and removing them in the next
major release.
Adam
--
Nephtali: PHP web framework that functions beautifully
http://nephtaliproject.com
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > 3. The motivation to skip 6 doesn't stem from marketing at all. The main
> motivation is that there's a VERY concrete perception amongst many users
> about what PHP 6 is.
>
> Leaving
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Felipe Pena wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm here again to presents another proposal, which adds support for
> instantiating a class and calling its methods and accessing its properties
> on same command.
>
> Example:
>
>
> class bar {
> public $x = 'PHP';
> }
>
> class f
>
>
>> We need to be careful about changing the beahviour of existing
> operators.
>
Indeed.
The '?' character already is special, so using '??' seems like a safe,
practical approach. However, I'd prefer maintaining the form of the standard
ternary operator with the colon ($value = $var['bar'] ?
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Rune Kaagaard wrote:
> Hey again
>
> Updated here as always https://gist.github.com/909711. I've tried to
> write down the goal of this new feature. Which patterns do we want to
> make easier to write?
>
> Do you agree with the goals I've set?
>
> +1 From me of c
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Hannes Landeholm wrote:
> Trying to summarize this discussion... I think we can all agree that the
> main problem is "code duplication for array access when parameters are
> possibly not existing". I think we all can also agree that @ can be both
> used properly a
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Ben Schmidt
wrote:
> There was also my suggestion of a "checked ternary" operator [see my
>> previous email in this thread.] Backwards compatible, practical, and
>> simple.
>>
>
> It doesn't address the main issues of code duplication and nullness
> checking, IMHO,
21 matches
Mail list logo
