A couple people I respect a heck of a lot have voted against, but I've
heard no technical explanation of "why" from them...
I voted "Yes" because I've never found a need for /e at all,
personally. Not sure my vote even counts, so feel free to nuke it. :-)
Or maybe I'm just not smart enough to emp
On Fri, February 24, 2012 1:52 pm, Tom Boutell wrote:
> 2. Why does php turn on thread-safety for mod_php at all on Linux,
> given that it apparently still doesn't work very well with various
> extensions in a genuinely multithreaded situation, slows things down,
> takes more memory, and leads to p
On Wed, February 22, 2012 8:57 am, Michael Morris wrote:
> Before writing up a full RFC I want to put out a feeler on something.
> Currently we have several input parameter objects, chief among them
> $_GET, $_POST, $_REQUEST, $_SERVER (for the client HTTP headers). All
> of them are arrays and le
On Wed, February 22, 2012 9:10 am, Michael Morris wrote:
> $_REQUEST does nothing of the sort, and it's use is dangerous in
> RESTful architecture. $_REQUEST is a smash together of $_GET, $_POST
> and $_COOKIE, in that order but the php.ini directive can change it.
> Hence there's no way of knowin
On Tue, February 21, 2012 11:49 pm, Deepak Balani wrote:
> I am think(actually drafting) about the compilation system of PHP
> scripts.
> I want to make a native C extension which is able to compile the
> scripts in
> the Zend Engines opcodes and execute directly when called.
>
> The extension may
On Wed, February 22, 2012 3:45 am, Flavius Aspra wrote:
> On 02/22/2012 07:29 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>> complicated optimization passes or any of those things
>
> Would such things be welcome/needed in the engine or as an extension?
Note that he said "complicated" :-)
There are many trivial /
On Thu, February 23, 2012 1:21 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
>1. Is strict typing something that we should seriously consider
>implementing at some point in the foreseeable future?
No.
If you want that, PHP is not the language for you, so just go use Java
and JSP.
I'm not being rude nor abusive:
On Mon, February 20, 2012 7:02 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
> Opening discussion on RFC pertaining to adding a new option to the
> configure script with regard to how/whether APXS touches the
> httpd.conf
> file.
>
> This is my first RFC post so please go easy on me if I screwed-up on
> procedure in any w
On Fri, February 24, 2012 4:16 pm, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 2/24/12 3:28 PM, Richard Lynch wrote:
> Because GET and POST are not even remotely the same thing and treating
> them as completely interchangeable is a bug in the first place.
We'll have to agree to disagree here.
To m
On Sun, February 26, 2012 9:48 am, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
I have to say that no matter how much a luv my OOP, turning every
built-in type into an Object is just a Bad Idea...
It's a form of bloat on RAM and CPU with minimal added value, imho.
No matter which way you twist this pretzel:
-1
--
On Sun, February 26, 2012 8:45 pm, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>> Or operator-overlading to the rescue? :-)
>
> Not quite. Especially because with operator overloading done at this
> level (how it would be implemented in PHP) it's almost impossible to
> make it consistent:
>
> class string {
> publ
On Sun, February 26, 2012 2:03 am, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Just discovered that our stock "php 4 support discontinued" message in
> bugs looks like:
>
> We are sorry, but we can not support PHP 4 related problems anymore.
> Momentum is gathering for PHP 6, and we think supporting PHP 4 will
> lead t
On Mon, February 27, 2012 2:31 am, Laruence wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Dmitry Stogov
> wrote:
>> Hi Laruence,
>>
>> The attached patch looks wired. The patch on top of it (r323563)
>> makes it
>> better. However, in my opinion it fixes a common problem just in a
>> single
>> place.
As promised in another thread, I have created a formal RFC on the
topic of including E_NOTICE in the default php.ini.* files.
Please note that I am specifically not proposing E_STRICT nor
E_DEPRECATED in this RFC, as I believe the each need to be considered
on their own merits, and not lumped into
On Mon, February 27, 2012 9:37 am, Simon Schick wrote:
> The development of the unicode-as-default-charset should really be
> done
> within the next release coming after 5.4
> I heared somewhere that it's nearly done ...
> I would have happily seen it in 5.4 but as this release is late right
> now
On Mon, February 27, 2012 8:29 am, Michael Morris wrote:
> Both of these must be
> declared formally (otherwise PHP assumes scalar)
I believe you mean "dynamic" or "loose" datatyping.
Scalar would imply that you couldn't do this:
array $a = array(); //force $a to always be array, and never anyth
On Sun, February 26, 2012 1:19 pm, Tom Boutell wrote:
> Bump - this is still a live issue on Ubuntu 11.10, for instance.
>
> I just hacked my Ubuntu PHP-from-source installer to touch up the
> Makefile by prepending -lstdc++ to EXTRA_LIBS. That does the job.
>
> Which I knew more about autoconf, I'
On Fri, February 24, 2012 6:14 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
> No, it happens and it's even clearly documented in APXS.
>
> Basically, if you specify the "-a" option in APXS, it overwrites your
> httpd.conf (or apache.conf or whatever it is on your system) and adds
> the
> LoadModule line to it. In PHP's
On Fri, February 24, 2012 4:40 pm, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 2/24/12 4:34 PM, Richard Lynch wrote:
>> On Fri, February 24, 2012 4:16 pm, Larry Garfield wrote:
>>> On 2/24/12 3:28 PM, Richard Lynch wrote:
> Except that per HTTP, GET and POST are completely different
>
On Fri, February 24, 2012 4:48 pm, Ronald Chmara wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Larry Garfield
> wrote:
>>> To me, it's just a request for some content, and in a REST API
>>> that's
>>> read-only, I just don't care if the consumer sends their request as
>>> GET or POST. I'll cheerfully
On Fri, February 24, 2012 4:33 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
> I hear that a lot; i.e. "If you want static typing, use Java."
>
> Unfortunately, that dismissive answer has not worked too well over the
> years, has it? People are still clamoring for this, and I think
> making
> some very valid arguments th
On Sat, February 25, 2012 7:58 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Stas Malyshev
> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>> I'm well aware that this has been discussed before, Stas. However,
>>> you're mischaracterizing those previous conversations. It has
>>> never
>>> been proven that opt
>> I'm not so sure about that. In a well-written web application, you
>> would
>> typically convert them on the first layer, when receiving from the
>> web.
>> On next usages, your int variables are usually ints already.
Afraid not.
It turns out that PHP, on 32-bit hardware, converting large BIGI
On Fri, February 24, 2012 5:15 pm, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 2/24/12 4:55 PM, Jeremiah Dodds wrote:
>
>>> Except that per HTTP, GET and POST are completely different
>>> operations. One
>>> is idempotent and cacheable, the other is not idempotent and not
>>> cacheable.
>>> I very much care whic
On Mon, February 27, 2012 9:20 am, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>> I have to say that no matter how much a luv my OOP, turning every
>> built-in type into an Object is just a Bad Idea...
>>
>> It's a form of bloat on RAM and CPU with minimal added value, imho.
> Re-read what I had written. I never said
On Mon, February 27, 2012 10:45 am, Ángel González wrote:
> On 27/02/12 17:19, Richard Lynch wrote:
>> PRESUMPTION:
>>
>> *ANY* strict datatype could also be NULL, to represent a failure
>> condition...
>>
>> Otherwise, when you are out of RAM:
>>
On Mon, February 27, 2012 11:38 am, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Discussed to death. Yet only one time before (discussing a specific
> patch)...
Did you go back to the old, old, old PHP list (and was it PHP-dev back
then?), before it split into php-general and php-internals and php-*,
back when there
On Mon, February 27, 2012 1:15 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
> Now, to rewind a bit past the latest chunk of "I hate this idea"
> posts
>
> I'd like to suggest a new term: "strong".
>
> This term would be similar to "weak", except with a few key
> differences:
>
>- Weak would behave very much like
On Mon, February 27, 2012 1:22 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
> Now that you've voiced your opposition, can we please dedicate this
> topic
> to discussing how this can be done? If you think we're wasting our
> time,
> then ok; it's our time to waste. I'd be happy to take you up on your
> challenge to try
On Mon, February 27, 2012 1:33 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
> I think it's a good idea, though I'm not sure it should be done in the
> production one as well. I'm not sure, but I think these errors are
> generally suppressed in production because of potential security
> concerns
> involved in making thos
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=36779
Not to say that "finally" shouldn't be added, but I don't think this
lock inside a loop is a particularly compelling example...
Either that loop is going to wait a whole lot for an exclusive lock at
every iteration, or the locks aren't exclusive and could be
On Tue, February 28, 2012 8:22 am, Kiall Mac Innes wrote:
> +1000
>
> This is a feature that I've always wanted in PHP, My main reason being
> to
> reduce code duplication. eg
>
> try {
> $fh = fopen($filename);
>
> // Do some work on the file + encounter an error.
> throw new Exception
On Mon, February 27, 2012 5:21 pm, Ángel González wrote:
> On 27/02/12 19:22, Richard Lynch wrote:
>>>> I'm not so sure about that. In a well-written web application, you
>>>> would
>>>> typically convert them on the first layer, when receiving from
On Mon, February 27, 2012 6:46 pm, Christopher Jones wrote:
>
>
> On 02/27/2012 01:12 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 2/27/2012 6:58 AM, jpauli wrote:
>
>>> Recently we had a bug with the new Apache 2.4 API where apxs
>>> doesn't answer
>>> about the MPM configuration anymore, leading to a ZTS
On Mon, February 27, 2012 11:05 pm, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> class Foo {
> public $value = 1;
> }
> class Bar {
> public $value = 1;
> public function __castTo($type) {
> return $this->value;
> }
> public function __assign($value) {
> $this->value = $value;
>
On Mon, February 27, 2012 4:34 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
> I think this is the main reason for differentiating between "strong"
> (or
> whatever word is appropriate) and "weak." The developer may very well
> want
> their script to blow-up in such a case.
I believe I actually "get it" now...
You want
On Mon, February 27, 2012 2:08 pm, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 21:05 +0100, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:09:08 +0100, Johannes Schlüter
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 13:05 -0600, Richard Lynch wrote:
>> >>
On Tue, February 28, 2012 3:31 am, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> I really liked what the O'Raily wrote here:
> http://www.oreillynet.com/ruby/blog/2007/09/7_reasons_i_switched_back_to_p_1.html
Please note that the author was a bass player in a band wanting to
sell CDs online when the five (5) choices we
On Tue, February 28, 2012 8:40 pm, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/object_cast_magic
Suggestion:
Rename __castTo as __castObject, to be parallel to engine
Question:
Is there no need to implement the get() function in userland?
It "feels" wrong for 1/3 to be missing, but I probab
On Tue, February 28, 2012 5:17 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
Some cases I would find interesting to be explained:
(using 'streak' for strong and/or weak, feel free to separate the two)
streak int $i = 123.456; //Common idiom for floor()
streak int $i = "123.456"; //In contrast to previous
streak int $i
On Wed, February 29, 2012 6:55 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
> If not, I'll go ahead and draft an RFC for these proposed amendments
> sometime today or tomorrow when I get a spare moment. If anyone has
> any
> thoughts on this, please share them! Thanks!
This is not an official answer. I don't have time
On Wed, February 29, 2012 7:16 pm, John Crenshaw wrote:
> I'm beginning to think that the type hinting question is too closely
> related to the dirty secrets of type juggling to resolve them
> separately. You may have to either discard consistency, or else fix
> the problem of silent bizarre conver
WILD GUESS ALERT!
I'm guessing that this is for byte-alignment on big-endian versus
little-endian...
So it's more like and as masks to flip-flop bytes by
some binary logic / magic.
The -1 is to "wrap" the byte to binary inversion.
You might want to grep the code and see how th
On Thu, March 1, 2012 2:38 am, John Crenshaw wrote:
>> You might consider those scripts poor programming practice. We all
>> do.
>> But PHP is the language of the unwashed masses, and that was, and
>> is,
>> part of why it is hugely popular. Somebody who barely understands
>> programming can pound
On Mon, March 12, 2012 1:49 am, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> What we really need is what we added in PHP 6. A runtime encoding ini
> setting that is distinct from the output charset which we can use
> here.
The usual argument against another php.ini setting, other than "too
many already" is the difficu
On Sun, March 11, 2012 6:29 pm, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I'd sure like a PHP extension that didn't have this obvious and
>> nasty bug:
>>
>> https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=46439
>
> This doesn't look good. Documentation does say the @ prefix exists,
> but
> it has very high potential of cre
On Fri, March 9, 2012 2:51 am, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky
> wrote:
>> Anthony,
>>
>> My concern with this type of patch is that what you are proposing
>> are
>> not really hints, they are forced casts. As such they modify the
>> data
>> potentially leadi
On Fri, March 9, 2012 5:58 pm, John Crenshaw wrote:
> The reason you have to validate the input type in this case is because
> even though it is a reference, we don't ACTALLY know that it isn't
> supposed to contain an input (even though that would be against all
> sane rules most of the time).
La
I can't recommend any blogs, per se, but Sara's book or even her
articles on Zend.com as well as the php.net manual about internals at
the end are a "must read" for understanding the internals...
On Thu, March 8, 2012 6:22 am, adit adit wrote:
> Let's try to stick only to the internals blogs, ok?
On Thu, March 8, 2012 5:13 am, Alain Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:06:56AM +0200, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
>> > Type hints are meant to
>> > filter input from external sources
>>
>> Correction, it should read like this:
>> Type hints are _not_ meant to filter input from external sources
On Tue, March 6, 2012 3:30 am, Florian Anderiasch wrote:
Security by blacklist almost always isn't security...
You're bound to miss one of the functions you should have blacklisted,
but didn't.
Something like Drupal would be crippled by this because major
extensions used by all rely on access t
On Mon, March 12, 2012 2:44 pm, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> But you can't necessarily hardcode the encoding if you are writing
> portable code. That's a bit like hardcoding a timezone. In order to
> write portable code you need to give people the ability to localize
> it.
If you wanted it portable, wo
On Wed, March 7, 2012 1:51 pm, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Am 07.03.2012 19:46, schrieb Kris Craig:
>> As I and others have said already, using a Subversion branching
>> model
>> on Git just doesn't make any sense.
>
> How often does it have to be explained to you and others that we
> would
> lik
On Fri, March 2, 2012 4:26 am, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> If we can agree upon the next version number beforehand, and we decide
> that
> we will go with the major release (be that php 6 or 7, whatever), we
> don't
> to do anything right now, we can branch the version from trunk/master,
> when
> the ti
On Thu, March 15, 2012 9:21 am, Klaus Silveira wrote:
> Hello internals,
>
> I've been involved in a discussion at the PHP Standards Group and we
> recently had the following statement:
>
> *Say you had a loop, and inside that loop you wanted to modify a param
>> **update the key:**
>> **foreach($a
On Wed, March 14, 2012 12:09 pm, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Richard Quadling
> wrote:
>
>> On 23 July 2011 23:29, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>> > I would propose that the defaul values(PHP_INI_ENTRY_*) and the
>> > php.ini-production should be keep in sync as much as possib
On Thu, March 15, 2012 5:01 am, Ryan McCue wrote:
> I'm not arguing that it should, I'm saying that in the INI it refers
> to
> the HTTP arguments, while in the code (via ini_set) it would not
> affect
> this. I think that could be confusing for users who don't realise the
> script is only loaded a
On Mon, March 19, 2012 2:45 pm, Barbu Paul Gheorghe wrote:
> What role does the keywords TSRMLS_CC, TSRMLS_DC, TSRMLS_D have when
> passed
> along with a argument in PHP's source?
> For example in this random file:
>
> http://lxr.php.net/opengrok/xref/PHP_5_4/ext/intl/formatter/formatter_data.c
>
>
On Sun, March 18, 2012 6:35 am, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 18.03.2012 10:14, schrieb Lester Caine:
>> I think what I am probably looking for is a clean guide as to how
>> code SHOULD be written nowadays in order to avoid
>> the nanny messages since it's certainly not my normal practice after
>>
On Fri, March 16, 2012 8:33 pm, langwan wrote:
> i hope using set_exception_handler and set_error_handler in php
> extension
> code.
> hi, all:
>
> i write php monitor extension now.
>
> 1. question
>
> i hope using set_exception_handler or set_error_handler in
> PHP_RINIT_FUNCTION()
>
> for exampl
On Tue, April 17, 2012 6:23 pm, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
> On 18.04.2012 00:54, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> One of the annoying things I've encountered in working with PHP was
>> dealing with functions having long optional parameter lists,
>> especially
>> if you need to change only the last one - you hav
On Sun, April 15, 2012 5:47 pm, Simon Schick wrote:
> Just to add a random thought
> When do you expect this code to be executed?
>
> class Foo {
> static public $foo = new StdClass();
> }
I may be too late to this party, but...
For what it's worth, if the non-scalar initialization in cl
On Fri, April 27, 2012 1:51 pm, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi!
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Stas Malyshev
> wrote:
>
>> Alternative means rewriting all the code. On top of framework
>> previously
>> not used in the project, with different APIs, different approach to
>> IMAP, etc. This is a large
On Wed, May 2, 2012 4:43 am, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>> empty() on the other hand, tests if something is empty, and only if
>>> it
>>> is empty. The result of an expression can be empty.
>>>
>>
>> an expression can also have a value of null.
>
> And NULL is empty. No issue here.
Expressions can also r
On Fri, May 4, 2012 2:10 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Richard Lynch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 4:43 am, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> >>> empty() on the other hand, tests if something is empty, and only
>> if
>> >>> it
>
I'm terribly sorry, but I managed to delete the original while running
through the thread to be sure I didn't duplicate comments, and my
mailer won't let me respond to a deleted message.
So this will appear as a new thread.
#1
A standard for non-core extension version fields is a great idea.
But
On Wed, April 18, 2012 9:42 pm, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
>> On 04/10/2012 06:20 PM, Adir Kuhn wrote:
>>
>> "PHP Gotchas, how they came to be, and why we can't simply fix
>> them"
>>
>
> can't or won't?
>
> It seems that the requirement for backward compatibility, as with most
> software, stands in th
On Thu, April 12, 2012 6:05 pm, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 00:53 +0200, Nikita Popov wrote:
>>
>> Currently the empty() language construct only works on variables.
>> You
>> can write if (empty($array)) but not empty if
>> (empty(getSomeArray()).
>
> I've mentioned this though
On Tue, April 10, 2012 5:53 pm, Nikita Popov wrote:
> Another reason is that currently you get a very obscure error message
> if you try to use empty() on a function return value: "Can't use
> function return value in write context". Aha. Where did I try to write
> to the return value?!
On the lin
On Wed, April 11, 2012 5:14 pm, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> I think my RFC confused people on this list due to improper
> descriptions
> and too much information. Sorry for the confusion. I revised the RFC
> so
> that most important points can be understood at a glance.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nophp
On Tue, April 10, 2012 1:27 pm, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Scroll down a bit; he gets into valid points about the == operator,
>> for instance. It's not a useless post. He does cite too many things
>> that he has to follow up himself by saying "this was fixed in PHP
>> 5.x.y." If it was fixed,
On Tue, April 10, 2012 1:13 pm, John Crenshaw wrote:
>In
> most systems you can upload *anything* with a .jpg extension and the
> app will take it, so you can still include the file
People don't use imagecreatefromjpeg() to be sure it isn't some ware
or executable or PHP script disguised as a JPEG
On Wed, April 11, 2012 12:25 am, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I'm sure you have seen the same code in JSON hijack countermeasure.
>>
>> while(1){}
>
> I think you misunderstood what I means. What I meant is you can inject
> code without the
> improvement?
> kill() function would be just an exam
[soapbox]
Several people in at least one thread (I can't remember) have stated:
Education won't work.
I must take objection to that.
Not too long ago, a large number of people on this very list agreed
that SQL Injection was a Big Problem, and if they all blogged about
it, awareness would help.
On Tue, April 17, 2012 3:34 am, Martin Jansen wrote:
> On 17.04.12 10:24, Bas van Beek wrote:
>> Sounds like facilitating wrong security protocols to me. In this
>> 365/24/7 environment, sysadmins should be willing and able to patch,
>> fix
>> and secure systems at any time. Weekend should be no ex
On Sat, May 5, 2012 12:29 pm, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Richard Lynch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, April 10, 2012 1:13 pm, John Crenshaw wrote:
>> >In
>> > most systems you can upload *anything* with a .jpg extension and
>> the
>> &g
On Sat, May 5, 2012 1:52 pm, Ángel González wrote:
I never said it was an iron-clad technique. Only that it would be
harder to craft such an image.
If your TOU that meta-data gets stripped, so be it.
Or find a way to have (some of) your users have some level of trust.
To: Tom (?)
One doesn't al
On Mon, May 14, 2012 1:47 pm, David Rueter wrote:
> I am interested in preserving the complete PHP context for a thread
> (globals,
> variables, interpreter, etc.--everything) for later access from a
> different
> thread.
>
> What would be involved in this? It seems like:
>
> 1) Avoid calling ts_f
No offense intended, but if you've got so many OOP objects flying
around that they are sucking down that much memory...
You probably need to refactor your code and just "don't do that"
Just my opinion.
--
brain cancer update:
http://richardlynch.blogspot.com/search/label/brain%20tumor
Donate:
h
On Sun, May 20, 2012 5:44 pm, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Rafael Dohms
> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Anthony Ferrara
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I had meant to reply to the list, but I had replied to Stas
>>> directly.
>>> I would be happy to change my vote from iss
On Mon, May 21, 2012 5:22 pm, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
> Ah, this is why one should trust a coder over a butler:
>
> http://www.ask.com/answers/112530521/5-people-are-voting-what-is-2-3-s-of-a-majority
Regarding the 2/3 super-majority rule...
I thought I'd check the non-authorative but always inte
On Wed, May 9, 2012 5:05 pm, Xin Tong wrote:
> I am new to php runtime. i am doing some research on runtime
> interpreter. can anyone please tell me where the interpreter of the
> php runtime is ? which file ? and does the php runtime has a JIT
> compiler ?
I believe the interpreter is built out
On Tue, May 22, 2012 1:51 pm, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
>> Apparently, we are not the only ones confused by edge cases:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority
>
> Can you point to where there's any suggestion of using the ceiling
> (rounding up) instead of requiring whole persons? In fact, t
On Tue, April 3, 2012 9:02 pm, Alan Knowles wrote:
> I just saw Daniel changing some of the PEAR classes to use Exceptions,
> and it's pretty clear that this could cause havoc with the end users.
> The problem being that there is no 'soft' landing for the migration
> process.
If I understand set_e
On Sun, April 1, 2012 7:19 am, Florian Anderiasch wrote:
> I'd appreciate any hints on how to tackle this serious concern.
If this actually wasn't an April Fool's joke...
Never ignore the user contributed notes after doing a search like:
http://php.net/roman
http://us3.php.net/manual/en/functio
On Mon, June 4, 2012 2:08 pm, Marc Easen wrote:
> I have submitted a patch to support negative indexs in strings, as per
> the conversation adding them to arrays could possibly detract from the
> syntactical sugar they are indented to be.
>
> In summary:
>
> An alternative to:
> $var = 'abc';
> ech
On Mon, June 11, 2012 2:13 pm, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> And then one would expect some rather complex logic to compute -N
>> for
>> $var[-N]
>
> I don't see much of complex logic here, but $a[2] = 'a' would create a
> new array element if it does not exist, while $a[-2] can't. Not a big
> issue, but
On Tue, December 4, 2007 2:18 pm, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>>> 1. Always compile it in but leave undocumented #ifdefs in place for
>>> performance freaks. Those same performance freaks aren't going to
>>> care
>>> about the binary compatibility issue since they are the sam
I suspect you could address security concerns by limiting the input to
valid characters in your arithmetic needs:
if (preg_match('|^[0-9.+/*-]+$|', $expression)){
eval("$foo = $expression");
return $foo;
}
On Fri, December 7, 2007 8:51 am, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> In-Built PHP Functions for par
On Tue, January 1, 2008 11:02 am, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 22:45 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>> Hello Johannes,
>>
>> I agree with Pierre here. How about finally making SPL built in
>> always
>> like ext/standard?
-1
I still don't want SPL cluttering things up for me,
I don't believe the PHP Dev Team has ever claimed that votes counted
for anything at all.
IIRC, the last known Dev Team structure was defined as "benevolent junta"
I do not think anybody who can count past 10 with their shoes on can
mistake "benevolent junta" for a vote-based democracy. :-)
Larr
On Fri, January 11, 2008 4:13 pm, Sam Barrow wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 00:52 +0300, Antony Dovgal wrote:
>> On 11.01.2008 22:13, Sam Barrow wrote:
>> >> input from many people is great, moreover - it is necessary.
>> However, it
>> >> is not the same as deciding by arithmetical majority of vot
-1
Another way of doing something already simple does not improve the
language, imho, only degrades maintenance and documentation.
If you have a time machine and can go back and make Rasmus do it this
way from the beginning, fine, but not now.
--
Some people have a "gift" link here.
Know what I
On Sat, January 5, 2008 2:48 pm, Stefan Esser wrote:
> Hello,
>>> typing into PHP, even if it is optional. Passing $_REQUEST['age']
>>> to a
>>>
>> that $_REQUEST['age'] has been checked for numeric before the
>> functio
>
> would you please not use $_REQUEST in any of your examples? $_REQUEST
> i
On Wed, January 16, 2008 12:54 am, Stefan Priebsch wrote:
> Richard Lynch schrieb:
>> If a web service really doesn't care whether it is responding to GET
>> or POST or even forged COOKIES to product its output, why would it
>> not
>> just use REQUEST?
>>
>
On Wed, January 16, 2008 1:45 am, Stefan Esser wrote:
> Stefan Priebsch schrieb:
>> Richard Lynch schrieb:
>>> If a web service really doesn't care whether it is responding to
>>> GET
>>> or POST or even forged COOKIES to product its output, why would it
&
On Wed, January 16, 2008 2:17 pm, Stefan Esser wrote:
> It would have been a good idea to have such a configuration option
> that
> allows to specify what is in _REQUEST and what not...
Perhaps it would be wise to add yet another php.ini setting?
[Yeah, I know the usual response to that. Just thi
On Mon, January 21, 2008 8:38 am, Antony Dovgal wrote:
>
> 6 reasons why we must to get rid of The Switch ASAP
>
I was +1...
Until folks started posting that old PHP scripts won't run as-is in
PHP 6?...
That's just daft...
When my webhost upg
On Fri, January 18, 2008 1:08 am, Antony Dovgal wrote:
> On 18.01.2008 04:39, Michael B Allen wrote:
>>> You have to copy the string if you want to store it.
>>
>> Ok. Doesn't look like I have much choice. I just wanted to
>> understand
>> the problem better. I'll just copy the strings.
>>
>> But i
On Wed, January 23, 2008 1:28 pm, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> I don't disagree with this, and that is actually why I insisted on
> having the unicode-semantics switch from the early days of the Unicode
> discussions, so you can blame me, again, if you consider it a bad
> design
> decision.
Would the w
1 - 100 of 480 matches
Mail list logo
