@lists.php.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics
switch
ASAP
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
On Wed, January 23, 2008 6:58 pm, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
It seems we're only talking about literals here. What about the rest
of
the places where unicode.semantics switch matters right now, like
streams (works in binary or unicode mode), incoming request decoding,
etc? It would be a shame to
I partially agree, I have been watching this discussion and it's funny
how we have such a class of high end developers saying to break old
PHP code. But, the majority of the success of PHP is not due to this
small class of high end developers, it's due to it's availability in a
shared hosting
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.
My take on it was that just about all ISPs would run with Unicode
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 world
Richard Lynch wrote:
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
On Wed, January 23, 2008 2:21 pm, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Richard Lynch wrote:
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
Lerdorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:29 AM
To: Chris Stockton
Cc: php-dev
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch
ASAP
I don't disagree with this, and that is actually why I insisted on
having the unicode-semantics switch from
On 23 Jan 2008, at 20:21, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
ufoo is a hack that will eventually disappear from the various
languages that have it or something similar.
I think we need to have binary strings as default with u… for a
while (whenever that gets merged into the default string type it is
-dev
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics
switch
ASAP
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
On 24.01.2008 01:08, David Zülke wrote:
How about allowing bfoo in 5.3 (so people can start migrating their
code early) and making unicode strings default in PHP7? :D
Too late..
It's already done =)
08 Feb 2007, PHP 5.2.1
- Added forward support for (binary) cast. (Derick)
--
Wbr,
Antony
David Zülke wrote:
How about allowing bfoo in 5.3 (so people can start migrating their
code early) and making unicode strings default in PHP7? :D
That's been there for a very long time now.
-Rasmus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
Ah. Right. I remember now. Sorry for the noise ;)
David
Am 23.01.2008 um 23:14 schrieb Antony Dovgal:
On 24.01.2008 01:08, David Zülke wrote:
How about allowing bfoo in 5.3 (so people can start migrating their
code early) and making unicode strings default in PHP7? :D
Too late..
It's
]
Cc: php-dev internals@lists.php.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch ASAP
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
Did you mean to say can't make the default string IS_STRING? Because
that's the only reading that makes sense given the rest of the message.
-Andrei
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
If we get rid of the switch, then I agree that we can't make the default
string IS_UNICODE. We would be crippling the
there and readily available to them.
Andi
-Original Message-
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:29 AM
To: Chris Stockton
Cc: php-dev
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch
ASAP
I don't disagree
Stockton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; php-dev
internals@lists.php.net
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch ASAP
Did you mean to say can't make the default string IS_STRING? Because
that's the only reading that makes sense given
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch ASAP
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
..
On Jan 23, 2008 11:14 AM, Chris Stockton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I partially agree, I have been watching this discussion and it's funny
how we have such a class of high end developers saying to break old
PHP code. But, the majority of the success of PHP is not due to this
small class of
, January 24, 2008 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch ASAP
Pass in Hello World where? And yes, you shouldn't have to do anything
special (especially for English). The functions will work transparently.
-Andrei
Steph Fox wrote:
Hey Andrei,
You can't
PROTECTED]; Chris Stockton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; php-dev internals@lists.php.net
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:00 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch ASAP
What's going to make PHP 7 different than PHP 6? We'll be back to the same
discussion then. PHP 5
PROTECTED]; php-dev internals@lists.php.net
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch ASAP
Pass in Hello World where? And yes, you shouldn't have to do
anything special (especially for English). The functions will work
No, sorry, I agree that was a badly written statement where the
crippling part didn't refer to the previous sentence. I meant that if
we remove the unicode semantics switch, then we are crippling the
implementation because we wouldn't be able to make the default string
literal IS_UNICODE which, I
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Steph Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chris Stockton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; php-dev internals@lists.php.net
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch ASAP
Hey, I can't do
: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch ASAP
Hey, I can't do everything.
-Andrei
Steph Fox wrote:
Right, and that's something that does NOT appear in any notes anywhere.
- Original Message - From: Andrei Zmievski
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Steph Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc
The question here isn't so much where we are going, but exactly how we
will get there and how long that might take.
Absolutely.
- Steph (who has taken several queries over this today thank you)
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
Is it possible to take a page out of the database engine's handbook and
tie a charset to a namespace like charsets are tied to tables?
namespace myNamespace charset=utf8
{
...
}
Then when no charset is defined it defaults to current PHP semantics.
Win-win?
Cheers,
Rob.
On Wed, 2008-01-23
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
Or people that worry too much about characters being bytes.
-Andrei
Steph Fox wrote:
Well maybe half the problem with this is that people aren't really
aware of what is or isn't the issue. As I (now) understand it, the
only people affected by Unicode support will be
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:42:21 +0100, Marco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
6 reasons why we must to get rid of The Switch ASAP
+1
Couldn't agree more!
Regards
Marco
/
Service provided by hitOmeter.NET internet messaging!
.
--
PHP
On Jan 21, 2008 3:38 PM, Antony Dovgal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
6 reasons why we must to get rid of The Switch ASAP
I was +1 months ago, I'm still +1 now :)
--
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe,
On Jan 22, 2008, at 5:29 AM, Pierre wrote:
On Jan 21, 2008 3:38 PM, Antony Dovgal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
6 reasons why we must to get rid of The Switch ASAP
I was +1 months ago, I'm still +1 now :)
I'll throw in my +1 too. That's right, I'm still alive! :)
-- Gwynne, Daughter of the Code
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
+1
remove switch
make unicode strings default
On 1/21/08, Antony Dovgal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
6 reasons why we must to get rid of The Switch ASAP
1) it gives users false sense of compatibility when no compatibility is
even planned;
+1
Remove switch.
Make unicode strings default.
6 reasons why we must to get rid of The Switch ASAP
1) it gives users false sense of compatibility when no compatibility is even
planned;
2) it's supposed to mean compatibility, but can be changed only in php.ini,
which
means users would
6 reasons why we must to get rid of The Switch ASAP
Couldn't agree more!
Regards
Marco
On 21 Jan 2008, at 14:38, Antony Dovgal wrote:
2) it's supposed to mean compatibility, but can be changed only in
php.ini, which
means users would still have to maintain 2 versions of their software:
one for On and second for Off.
I think this is the biggest issue for anyone writing
Forgot to CC list.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch
ASAP
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:07:43 -0600
From: Jeremy Privett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Omega Vortex Corporation
To: Antony Dovgal [EMAIL PROTECTED
Forgot to CC list again.
Just not my day.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch
ASAP
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:11:32 -0600
From: Jeremy Privett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Omega Vortex Corporation
To: Geoffrey
On 21 Jan 2008, at 14:38, Antony Dovgal wrote:
3) 2+ bigger codebase [1] (with lots of duplicates because we have to
do
same things in native and unicode modes);
From the cross-reference I assume you mean PHP's codebase. We still
need binary string support — Unicode is only suitable for
Tomas Kuliavas wrote:
On 21 Jan 2008, at 14:38, Antony Dovgal wrote:
3) 2+ bigger codebase [1] (with lots of duplicates because we have to
do
same things in native and unicode modes);
From the cross-reference I assume you mean PHP's codebase. We still
need binary string support
3) 2+ bigger codebase [1] (with lots of duplicates because we have to
do
same things in native and unicode modes);
From the cross-reference I assume you mean PHP's codebase. We still
need binary string support — Unicode is only suitable for textual
content. Images, for example, are binary
Hello Antony,
+1 + thanks, it is simply a ppain in th eass to develop with
7) It alone is responsible for at least 10% slowdown.
marcus
Monday, January 21, 2008, 3:38:00 PM, you wrote:
6 reasons why we must to get rid of The Switch ASAP
5) this is yet another reincarnation of ze1_compatibility switch.
Which is the worst mistake ever imo - If you wanted PHP 4 you would simply
use PHP 4. Now if you want PHP 5 just damn use PHP 5.
And if you don't control PHP version used by end user? Only bad in-house
apps are written for one
Tomas Kuliavas schreef:
me, I'm all for dropping unicode.semantics - Antony makes strong points
and it can only help the quality of the product if exceptions and switchable
functionality is kept to a minimum. from a developers POV the same is true,
additionally 'forcing' unicode on the
Hello Tomas,
you're point being? Without the requested change here you would have one
more version, resulting in PHP 5.*, PHP 6.*-unicode, PHP6.*-native.
marcus
Monday, January 21, 2008, 6:22:32 PM, you wrote:
5) this is yet another reincarnation of ze1_compatibility switch.
Which is the
5) this is yet another reincarnation of ze1_compatibility switch.
Which is the worst mistake ever imo - If you wanted PHP 4 you would
simply
use PHP 4. Now if you want PHP 5 just damn use PHP 5.
And if you don't control PHP version used by end user? Only bad in-house
apps are written for
Tomas Kuliavas wrote:
5) this is yet another reincarnation of ze1_compatibility switch.
Which is the worst mistake ever imo - If you wanted PHP 4 you would
simply
use PHP 4. Now if you want PHP 5 just damn use PHP 5.
And if you don't control PHP version used by end user?
On 21 Jan 2008, at 19:38, Tomas Kuliavas wrote:
5) this is yet another reincarnation of ze1_compatibility switch.
Which is the worst mistake ever imo - If you wanted PHP 4 you would
simply
use PHP 4. Now if you want PHP 5 just damn use PHP 5.
And if you don't control PHP version used by end
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Antony Dovgal wrote:
6 reasons why we must to get rid of The Switch ASAP
Amen!
Derick
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Zitat von Antony Dovgal [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
6 reasons why we must to get rid of The Switch ASAP
Having maintained a huge Unicode compatible codebase in PHP4 for the
last few years, I know which PITA it already is today, having to
consider the availability of mbstring and iconv, or dealing
Hi,
I agree that having such a switch is not going to be a good strategy. The main
reason is the headache application authors are going to have with compatibility
especially when it comes to hosted pre-configured environments and/or dedicated
servers that run more than one application.
I
Hi Andi,
As we have discussed in the past the migration path may be extremely hard
moving from PHP 5 to PHP 6. Therefore the community has to come together
and really invest in the migration path more than we have in the past
(like we did from version 2 to 3). This means that during the
'Unicode strings would be explicit' is one thing, a Unicode mode that
messes up existing code is quite another. So you're looking at keeping
the support dual but changing the userland approach to it, did I hear
you right?
I think the idea was no php.ini switch, but the question what foo
I think the idea was no php.ini switch, but the question what foo
should produce - IS_UNICODE or IS_STRING is still open for consideration.
foo alone should produce IS_STRING. The real question IMHO is how far back
do you backport tolerance for a unicode cast.
- Steph
--
PHP Internals -
Message-
From: Steph Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 5:30 PM
To: Stas Malyshev
Cc: Andi Gutmans; Antony Dovgal; internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch
ASAP
I think the idea was no php.ini switch
On Jan 21, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
I see I may not have been clear in my previous email.
Indeed as Stas mentioned I agree we should not have a php.ini
switch, i.e. unicode.semantics goes away.
At the same time I propose:
a) We invest considerable energy in figuring out and
Antony Dovgal wrote:
6 reasons why we must to get rid of The Switch ASAP
1) it gives users false sense of compatibility when no compatibility is even
planned;
2) it's supposed to mean compatibility, but can be changed only in php.ini, which
As for PHP 6 generally: there needs to be a solid migration path,
such as forwards-compatible syntax introduced to PHP 5. MediaWiki
has extensive support for unicode in PHP 5, including a pure PHP
implementation of NFC, cross-script and confusable character
checks, extensive parsing of
Without repeating too much of what has already been said, phpBB3 runs
with its own normalizer (NF[CD]K?) and a full implementation of case
folding along with all sorts of other goodies. For us, it would be best
if semantics were off. Then we could trivially determine whether or not
we should
See below:
-Original Message-
From: Andrei Zmievski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 8:23 PM
To: Andi Gutmans
Cc: Steph Fox; Stas Malyshev; Antony Dovgal; internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch
ASAP
2008/1/21, Antony Dovgal [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
6) we need to remove the switch ASAP
Yes :) I urge you to do this, the introduction of this setting is
probably the worst design mistake in PHP history after safe_mode and
register_globals .
Please withdrawn this insanity before it is too late, if
On 22.01.2008, at 04:14, Andi Gutmans wrote:
I don't think this affects PHP 5.3 (http://wiki.pooteeweet.org/PhP53VoteResult
) which I believe we're making good progress on. It allows us to get
some of those features out earlier including things like namespaces
which the various framework
63 matches
Mail list logo
