On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:46 PM, LEW21 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sometimes call time pass by reference is useful, for example when you
want to make it possible to omit an param (normally passed by
reference) by setting null. With no call time pass by reference,
programmers are required to
Hi,
There is a use case for the function allowing *explicitly* call-time pass by
reference, because the function works both ways in subtly different ways.
I have some libraries where I had to have variations of the functions like
AbcByRefr() and Abc(), because of this inflexibility.
In a
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
$a = [[1, 2], [3, 4], 5, 6];
Proposed twice at least, but PHP developer community doesn't seem to like
it.
Many of us like it. And the end users I know like it too.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net |
On 22.05.2008 13:46, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
$a = [[1, 2], [3, 4], 5, 6];
Proposed twice at least, but PHP developer community doesn't seem to like
it.
Many of us like it. And the end users I know like it too.
I
Hey Andrei,
UG(unicode) checks are still secondary I think - they don't prevent us
from doing tests and moving forward, although cleaning them up would be
nice.
Cleaning them up would make it possible to find and fix the bugs we already
know are there ;) There don't seem to be too many, but
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Antony Dovgal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22.05.2008 13:46, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi!
$a = [[1, 2], [3, 4], 5, 6];
Proposed twice at least, but PHP developer community doesn't
2008/5/22, Alexey Zakhlestin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:46 PM, LEW21 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sometimes call time pass by reference is useful, for example when you
want to make it possible to omit an param (normally passed by
reference) by setting null. With no call
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:51 PM, LEW21 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/5/22, Alexey Zakhlestin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:46 PM, LEW21 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sometimes call time pass by reference is useful, for example when you
want to make it possible to omit an param
Hi,
Actually PHP ignores default values on parameters followed by required ones.
You can't fetch the default value even via Reflection.
This is easily detected at compile time so I wonder why the compiler doesn't
warn.
Regards,
Stan Vassilev
what stops you from declaring:
function
Hi Stan,
There is a use case for the function allowing *explicitly* call-time pass
by reference, because the function works both ways in subtly different
ways.
This RFC isn't about whether or not this behaviour should be deprecated. It
simply recommends that a warning be thrown by default
2008/5/22 Stan Vassilev | FM [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Actually PHP ignores default values on parameters followed by required ones.
You can't fetch the default value even via Reflection.
This is easily detected at compile time so I wonder why the compiler doesn't
warn.
Regards,
Stan
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 12:33 +0200, Pierre Joye wrote:
Agreed, we should simply go through a vote and be done with that.
Vote until all are annoyed and don't vote against it anymore just to
stop voting? (it's less annoying to have it than vote about it every
two months) There was some voting
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Johannes Schlüter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 12:33 +0200, Pierre Joye wrote:
Agreed, we should simply go through a vote and be done with that.
Vote until all are annoyed and don't vote against it anymore just to
stop voting? (it's
Hi,
Please notice that I said followed by required ones.
function foo($a = null, $b) {}
The above definition is allowed and the compiler won't complain, but
actually that = null is completely lost, including in Reflection.
Regards,
Stan Vassilev
2008/5/22 Stan Vassilev | FM [EMAIL
On 22 May 2008, at 07:29, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Johannes Schlüter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 12:33 +0200, Pierre Joye wrote:
Agreed, we should simply go through a vote and be done with that.
Vote until all are annoyed and don't vote
Hi!
Many of us like it. And the end users I know like it too.
You don't need to convince me :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
Steph Fox wrote:
What concerns me at this point is that we could and should be telling
PHP users how to future-proof their code during the move from PHP 4 to
PHP 5. If we can get a fix on that now and get word out, we'll have made
their future migration path *much* smoother.
As far as I can
[ forgot to sent that to the list ]
Hi Philip,
Am Dienstag, den 20.05.2008, 12:55 -0700 schrieb Philip Olson:
[...]
PHP 5.3 is approaching fast, so let's conclude our dealings with
magical quotes... this should be the last time. Please have a look at
the following RFC and discuss it
cu, Lars
P.S.: Silence agrees doesn't work, silence is void.
Well, if silence is void: TAKE IT OFF!!! (+1 ... once again on this subject)
--
Slan,
David
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 22.05.2008, 18:23 +0300 schrieb Stan Vassilev | FM:
[...]
function foo($a = null, $b) {}
Isn't that a typical case for throwing an E_STRICT warning or is is not
possible to check that efficiently in the engine?
cu, Lars
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital
Hi David,
Am Donnerstag, den 22.05.2008, 18:14 -0400 schrieb David Coallier:
cu, Lars
P.S.: Silence agrees doesn't work, silence is void.
Well, if silence is void: TAKE IT OFF!!! (+1 ... once again on this #subject)
You've spotted that the proposal is not about the question if they
should
Lars Strojny wrote:
[ forgot to sent that to the list ]
Hi Philip,
Am Dienstag, den 20.05.2008, 12:55 -0700 schrieb Philip Olson:
[...]
PHP 5.3 is approaching fast, so let's conclude our dealings with
magical quotes... this should be the last time. Please have a look at
the following RFC
PHP 5.3 is approaching fast, so let's conclude our dealings with
magical quotes... this should be the last time. Please have a look at
the following RFC and discuss it within this thread.
Magic Quotes in PHP 5.3 and beyond
- http://wiki.php.net/rfc/magicquotes
It recommends changes to
Hi Rasmus,
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lars Strojny wrote:
[ forgot to sent that to the list ]
Hi Philip,
Am Dienstag, den 20.05.2008, 12:55 -0700 schrieb Philip Olson:
[...]
PHP 5.3 is approaching fast, so let's conclude our dealings with
Hi,
Just making sure I understood it well. Get isn't deprecated (good), set is
(good), but what happens if I try to set magic quotes runtime *off* if it
was *on* from the config.
I couldn't see anything about the PHP config setting being ignored/removed
or throwing error in the RFC.
For
Not sure we really reached a conclusion. I think it was inconclusive and people
got tired.
As I've stated in the past in general I don't like the ability to do things in
more than one way but in this case I think the advantages of the cleaner syntax
outweigh the fact that we'd have two ways.
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Not sure we really reached a conclusion. I think it was inconclusive and people
got tired.
As I've stated in the past in general I don't like the ability to do things in
more than one way but in this case I think the advantages of the cleaner syntax
outweigh the fact that
27 matches
Mail list logo
