"Jen Rasmussen" writes:
> Peet,
>
> Could you do something like this instead? This is using named placeholders
> and a separate line for your statement
> but I was able to get it to echo the statement in this manner.
>
> $sql = "UPDATE table SET field1=:field1, field2=:field2 WHERE id=:id";
>
Robert Cummings writes:
> On 11-08-29 03:42 PM, Rico Secada wrote:
>> You go into your homemade library of code to re-use some piece that you
>> already are using 12 other places in production. Now, last time you
>> worked on the code you thought it was almost perfect. While working on
>> the cod
tamouse mailing lists writes:
> I'm encountering this on a script, but I can't figure out where it's
> actually failing. How do I debug this problem???
Depends on what you mean by "script". Do a binary search with a php line
that says "I got here".
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.
Tim Streater writes:
> On 14 Aug 2011 at 14:23, Alekto Antarctica
> wrote:
>
>> *function loggedin()*
>> *{*
>> * if (isset($_SESSIONS['username']) || isset($_COOKIE['username']))*
>> * {*
>> * $loggedin = true;*
>> * return $loggedin;*
>> * }*
>> *}*
>
> Why not justreturn true;
>
> An
Andre Polykanine writes:
> Hello alekto,
>
> I've got several notes to point out:
> 1. You can't do neither a header(), nor a SetCookie() after any echo
> on the page. The out-of-php pieces of the page included.
Not true.
See ob_start and family.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http
In mailing lists and usenet you should never top post. You integrate
your reply or "follow up". This is well documented and makes sense in
tech threads were context is everything.
In adidition your content type in your post is incorrect.
Your header contains
Content-Type: multipart/alternative
Ashley Sheridan writes:
> On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 19:23 +0200, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> Geoff Shang writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
>> >
>> >>> I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just be
Geoff Shang writes:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>>> I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because they
>>> don't
>>> support it. Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can still be
Geoff Shang writes:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> Why do you feel FB should support some antiquated browser that doesnt
>> support any of the newer technoogies which enable security and more
>> advanced client side rendering?
>
> I don't. I
Geoff Shang writes:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Tim Streater wrote:
>
>> Anyone whose site says that sort of crap needs a good smack.
>
> Don't get me started on Facebook. If they don't like your browser, they
> redirect you to their"We don't support your browser page". They don't even
> let
> you t
10 matches
Mail list logo
