Oh, my..
This code clearly demonstrates why a syntax like this should not be
allowed. Ever.
This code is exactly what I wrote, personally, when I wanted to use
anonymous functions for the first time in PHP. And I guess I have not been
the only one.
Could you explain in what way it clearly
On 12/20/07, Antony Dovgal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20.12.2007 09:57, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
being able to do the following (and not to worry about runtime
compilation) is a good reason on it's own:
array_filter($my_data, function($test){ return 3 === ($test % 4) });
Oh, my..
This
On 20.12.2007 11:18, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
On 12/20/07, Antony Dovgal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20.12.2007 09:57, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
being able to do the following (and not to worry about runtime
compilation) is a good reason on it's own:
array_filter($my_data,
On 12/20/07, Antony Dovgal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you prefer cluttering namespace with a lot of oneliners?
Oh, come on.. Since when do we call it cluttering?
Is there some kind of limit on number of functions in a namespace?
Why limit yourself and inline the function instead of putting it
On 20/12/2007, Alexey Zakhlestin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/20/07, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we need it. In the current incarnation, anonymous functions
are so impractical to use, that it's a barrier. I think that is
unfortunate, because it could be an
(Sorry if you get this twice, Antony. I didn't hit 'Reply to all' the
first time)
On Dec 20, 2007 10:19 AM, Antony Dovgal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20.12.2007 11:18, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
On 12/20/07, Antony Dovgal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20.12.2007 09:57, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
On 12/20/07, Antony Dovgal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20.12.2007 12:41, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
it doesn't make sense to put some of these functions in libraries,
because they are really once-used.
It makes perfect sense to keep all your functions in one place instead of
spreading them
Hello Stanislav,
and you did it again :-) Not working? What the hell are you talking of?
We can easily make it working with whatever feature set we want. We do not
support any feature ever thought of for everything in PHP. For instance
our object model has no abstract with default body, no MI,
On 20.12.2007 12:46, troels knak-nielsen wrote:
(Sorry if you get this twice, Antony. I didn't hit 'Reply to all' the
first time)
No problem, one email more, one email less.. =)
I don't know what else I can add, so I can only repeat myself:
On 12/20/07, Antony Dovgal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No problem, one email more, one email less.. =)
I don't know what else I can add, so I can only repeat myself:
http://daylessday.org/archives/12-Lets-add-this,-lets-add-that.html
a major difference: this time there is a patch
--
Alexey
Am 20.12.2007 um 10:19 schrieb Antony Dovgal:
On 20.12.2007 11:18, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
On 12/20/07, Antony Dovgal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20.12.2007 09:57, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
being able to do the following (and not to worry about runtime
compilation) is a good reason on it's
On 20.12.2007 12:41, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
it doesn't make sense to put some of these functions in libraries,
because they are really once-used.
It makes perfect sense to keep all your functions in one place instead of
spreading them all over the code.
And no, this kind of optimization
Hello!
I packed PHP 4.4.8RC1 today, which you can find here:
http://downloads.php.net/derick/
Please test it carefully, and report any bugs in the bug system, but
only if you have a short reproducable test case.
If everything goes well, we can release it somewhere in the first week
of 2008.
Hello Derick,
to stick with our announced plan, can we release this in 2007?
marcus
Thursday, December 20, 2007, 1:43:18 PM, you wrote:
Hello!
I packed PHP 4.4.8RC1 today, which you can find here:
http://downloads.php.net/derick/
Please test it carefully, and report any bugs in the bug
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Derick,
to stick with our announced plan, can we release this in 2007?
That would be exactly in one week, on the 27th then. I prefer doing it
just in the new year cause all the sysadms are back to work then. I
think Jan 3rd is still
On 30.11.2007, at 00:09, Steph Fox wrote:
Stas - we don't even know what they're planning to put into CVS.
Just
And waiting couple of days for the explanation is of course not an
option.
But opening up a module in the php.net CVS repository that php.net
contributors are excluded from
No. This Apache CLA most of today's CLAs used by open source projects
(Zend Framework, Cake etc) are derived from require you to grant an
unlimited, unrevocable, royalte-free, blah-blah license to use your
contribution, and, if _you_ hold patents on this invention, that you
grant the same
Hello David, Lukas,
this is all bullshit! In PHP we simply grant the stuff to the PHP project
by putting it under the copyright of 'The PHP Group'. That is all that
should ever be necessary. And to Lukas, you either violated a signed
agreement here by telling us stuff you learned while being
Sure, Marcus, I understand that. I was just explaining to Lukas what
this commonly used CLA variant mandates.
David
P.S: in strict legal terms, even in PHP, you just implicitly grant a
perpetual, royalty-free etc license to the PHP project by committing a
changeset as in many European
On 20.12.2007, at 16:31, David Zülke wrote:
No. This Apache CLA most of today's CLAs used by open source
projects (Zend Framework, Cake etc) are derived from require you to
grant an unlimited, unrevocable, royalte-free, blah-blah license to
use your contribution, and, if _you_ hold
On 20.12.2007, at 17:07, Marcus Boerger wrote:
should ever be necessary. And to Lukas, you either violated a signed
agreement here by telling us stuff you learned while being part of
that
group - or you are speculating. You should however not do that!
Maybe not
even IBM is interested in
Then read it again. It's pretty clear.
David
Am 20.12.2007 um 17:26 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:
On 20.12.2007, at 16:31, David Zülke wrote:
No. This Apache CLA most of today's CLAs used by open source
projects (Zend Framework, Cake etc) are derived from require you to
grant an
On 04.12.2007, at 23:41, Steph Fox wrote:
Can I just ask one thing? If namespace support is once again pulled
before it sees the light of a release, can we _please_ document
exactly what the problems were, loud and clear, and put the
document somewhere people are likely to see it?
I agree with Derick. Releasing it on the 1st week of January is ideal
since most admins are not really doing anything on xmas week.
On 20-Dec-07, at 8:35 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Derick,
to stick with our announced plan, can we release
On 12/20/07, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
being able to do the following (and not to worry about runtime
compilation) is a good reason on it's own:
array_filter($my_data, function($test){ return 3 === ($test % 4) });
What's wrong with regular functions?
I wrote in in
On 20.12.2007, at 17:57, David Zülke wrote:
Then read it again. It's pretty clear.
3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
grant the same for those patents you own. Those CLAs do not require that
you guarantee that your contribution is not violating any 3rd-party
patents.
Nobody can require that, that'd be stupid - how one can guarantee nobody
has patent to something? Even very expensive patent search doesn't
This tells me that I need to have all patents that the code infringes
upon. I know that there is this licensedable by You thingi in there,
but sorry I cannot parse run on sentences like that. Does licenseable by
You mean that I have to grant the license or that I am legaqlly entitled
to even
On 20.12.2007, at 18:41, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
grant the same for those patents you own. Those CLAs do not
require that you guarantee that your contribution is not violating
any 3rd-party patents.
Nobody can require that, that'd be stupid - how one can guarantee
nobody has patent to
this is all bullshit! In PHP we simply grant the stuff to the PHP project
by putting it under the copyright of 'The PHP Group'. That is all that
should ever be necessary. And to Lukas, you either violated a signed
Copyright and patents are different things, and unfortunately no, it's
not all
array_filter($my_data, function($test){ return 3 === ($test % 4) });
What's wrong with regular functions?
At risk of wading into yet circular another discussion on internals@,
I was part of the original thread on this subject, and I agree with
Stas here: unless they're real closure,
Looks great, thanks!
-shire
On Dec 20, 2007, at 5:22 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi Brain,
I've committed your patch into all branches, because it not only
improve performance on x86_64, but also fixes a bug in x86 code.
Thank you very much.
Dmitry.
Original Message
On 20.12.2007, at 18:58, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
BTW - I hope you don't think that if you didn't sign the CLA and
you contributed code to PHP that you didn't have rights to
contribute, not signing would help you in any way. Or that if you
contributed code that violates patents, not
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Anyways, maybe I am just dense, but maybe all the CLA authors
should just put in an effort to make it possible for people to
understand their licenses without having to consult a lawyer.
Maybe, just maybe, it was just a bad idea to start this discussion
with a CVS
That makes perfect sense to me as I see/use this sort of code in JavaScript.
Well, PHP is not Javascript - and BTW Javascript is a complex language
and I don't think we should import that complexity into PHP.
The argument about making the filter a global function is not sensible
to apply in
and you did it again :-) Not working? What the hell are you talking of?
We can easily make it working with whatever feature set we want. We do not
We meaning who? I can't easily make closures working in PHP. And even
if I could, I'm not sure I want to.
support any feature ever thought of
1) you need to declare them somewhere, which doesn't make much sense
if these functions are meant to be used only in such context.
If you need them in context, you can declare them in context.
Sometimes there are even problem to give meaningful names to such
functions
Just describe what it
Of course. The only difference being that if users of my code cannot
fallback on a CLA as a deflector, they have a much bigger interest in
Deflector of what? CLA gives the users of the code reasonable - not
100%, but reasonably good - warranty that their behind stays out of
trouble when they
On 20.12.2007, at 19:19, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Of course. The only difference being that if users of my code
cannot fallback on a CLA as a deflector, they have a much bigger
interest in
Deflector of what? CLA gives the users of the code reasonable - not
100%, but reasonably good -
So maybe enlighten me what the purpose of the CLA is. My understand is
As far as I understand, the purpose of the CLA usually is to make
reasonable assurance for the user that the code in the project is safe
to use and nobody would give them trouble for using it - by claiming the
code is
On Dec 20, 2007 7:02 PM, Sean Coates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apart from saving a few keystrokes, the above could easily be changed
to the following, which is much more clear, DOES compile at compile-
time, and works without adding a new construct that looks like a
closure, but is not indeed
Consider the following code:
test.php:
?php
include 'foo.php';
use test::foo;
foo();
?
foo.php:
?php
namespace test;
function foo() { }
?
Is it expected behavior that the scripts ends in:
Fatal error: Call to undefined function foo()
?
That's all for now.
Best regards,
Martin Alterisio
PS:
since when has anything in PHP core required a CLA?
I think you know the answer to that.
And why change that now?
There could be the reasons to do it (some described in this thread), and
the reasons not to do it. But before deciding which ones are better, I'd
propose to understand what
there is nothing to discuss here, unless you personally keep insisting on.
If you don't have anything to discuss, then don't ;)
We have lived pretty damn good without any such thing. And alone the fact
that requiring an NDA to be signed will kick out core developers should be
enough for you
Hello Stanislav,
there is nothing to discuss here, unless you personally keep insisting on.
We have lived pretty damn good without any such thing. And alone the fact
that requiring an NDA to be signed will kick out core developers should be
enough for you to ever know. Unless you prefer to get
Hello Stanislav,
whom are you helping? A potential CLA?
In the meantime *I* only wonder that none of the original PDO inventors has
any clue what is going on - well besides Wez of course who joined efforts
after the first PDO implementation.
Thursday, December 20, 2007, 8:40:31 PM, you wrote:
Am 20.12.2007 um 19:25 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:
So maybe enlighten me what the purpose of the CLA is.
The purpose is that a project/company/whoever has written confirmation
that the developer who contributes something gives the respective
entity full permission and license on copyright
Hello Stanislav,
since when has anything in PHP core required a CLA? And whay change that now?
marcus
Thursday, December 20, 2007, 6:59:53 PM, you wrote:
this is all bullshit! In PHP we simply grant the stuff to the PHP project
by putting it under the copyright of 'The PHP Group'. That
whom are you helping? A potential CLA?
For example, I hope I just helped Lukas and probably others to
understand what CLAs are for. I can't help CLA since CLA is neither a
person nor any entity to be helped.
In the meantime *I* only wonder that none of the original PDO inventors has
any
There is apparently something. I won't let you continue. You cannot shut me
up because you don't like me disagreeing on any NDA or CLA. Yet unless as
I never intended to shut you up - you said that there's nothing to
discuss. Apparently, there is :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software
Anthony,
It may be disagreeable from your perspective, but I (and many others)
find this to be a very useful construct. And I hate to invoke other
languages argument, but there is a reason that something like this is
available in many modern languages - it is useful.
-Andrei
Antony Dovgal
Right, PHP is not Javascript. But, PHP has been used alongside
Javascript more and more lately (consider AJAX and all that good stuff),
so folks who program in both would be helped by having a construct that
is both clean, readable, and similar between languages.
-Andrei
Stanislav Malyshev
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 11:40 -0800, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
currently the users seem to live quite good with the licenses granted by
the PHP License 3.01.
Quite good can be always made better. For example, you may claim PDO
is perfect and doesn't need any help from DB vendors, and
So you were talking about the purpose was making the user's life
safer, now you say that DB vendors need a CLA for contribution. Sorry,
now I'm confused.
You are easily confused :) I suggest you to read detailed explanations I
wrote previously. It makes both safer to use and easier to
Hi Patrick,
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 18:53 +0100, iODBC Maintainer wrote:
As maintainer of the iODBC driver manager project i have some fixed and
enhancements for the php odbc layer that i would like to submit for
review and inclusion into the code base.
[...]
Please let me know what the
Hi Johannes,
As maintainer of the iODBC driver manager project i have some fixed and
enhancements for the php odbc layer that i would like to submit for
review and inclusion into the code base.
[...]
Please let me know what the appropriate way of sending these patches to
the relevant
On Dec 20, 2007 5:57 PM, David Zülke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then read it again. It's pretty clear.
It is not clear at all. Or we are simply too stupid to understand it.
And as we don't agree on things we don't understand, let forget the
CLA once and for ever. I think there is a very large
internet related economy (intra, extra or internet applications). None
of the very large companies using PHP have had any issues with the PHP
licenses or the lack of CLA.
Just out of sheer curiosity - how many large companies did you ask about
having or not having problems in this regard?
On Dec 20, 2007 10:09 PM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
internet related economy (intra, extra or internet applications). None
of the very large companies using PHP have had any issues with the PHP
licenses or the lack of CLA.
Just out of sheer curiosity - how many large
Martin Alterisio wrote:
Consider the following code:
test.php:
?php
include 'foo.php';
use test::foo;
foo();
?
foo.php:
?php
namespace test;
function foo() { }
?
Is it expected behavior that the scripts ends in:
Fatal error: Call to undefined function foo()
?
Hi Martin,
No.
On 20.12.2007, at 20:54, David Zülke wrote:
Am 20.12.2007 um 19:25 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:
So maybe enlighten me what the purpose of the CLA is.
The purpose is that a project/company/whoever has written
confirmation that the developer who contributes something gives the
respective
2007/12/20, Greg Beaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Martin Alterisio wrote:
Consider the following code:
test.php:
?php
include 'foo.php';
use test::foo;
foo();
?
foo.php:
?php
namespace test;
function foo() { }
?
Is it expected behavior that the scripts ends in:
Fatal
Consider the following code:
foo.php:
?php
class test {
public static function foo() { echo I'm foo in class test\n; }
public static function foo2() { self::foo(); }
}
?
foo2.php:
?php
namespace test;
function foo() { echo I'm foo in namespace test\n; }
?
test.php:
?php
include 'foo.php';
Attached is a quick patch for PHP 5.2.5 that replaces RSA's copyrighted
implementation of MD5 with my public domain one:
http://cvsweb.openwall.com/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/Owl/packages/popa3d/popa3d/md5/
Tried that one and it is about 30% faster indeed (on md5-only benchmark,
32-bit Linux on
2007/12/20, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Attached is a quick patch for PHP 5.2.5 that replaces RSA's copyrighted
implementation of MD5 with my public domain one:
http://cvsweb.openwall.com/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/Owl/packages/popa3d/popa3d/md5/
Tried that one and it is about 30% faster
2007/12/20, Martin Alterisio [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2007/12/20, Greg Beaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Martin Alterisio wrote:
Consider the following code:
test.php:
?php
include 'foo.php';
use test::foo;
foo();
?
foo.php:
?php
namespace test;
function foo() { }
Developing the PHP runtime
Translating the documentation
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Martin Alterisio wrote:
Consider the following code:
foo.php:
?php
class test {
public static function foo() { echo I'm foo in class test\n; }
public static function foo2() { self::foo(); }
}
?
foo2.php:
?php
namespace test;
function foo() { echo I'm foo in namespace test\n; }
68 matches
Mail list logo
