What was the conclusion on Wez' patch from march [1]? The discussion
seemed to steer a bit off, on the discussion of scoping rules, but is
there any reason _not_ to implement Wez' patch in HEAD?
Even if it doesn't entirely replace create_function, it would be nice
to have as a compile-time
, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the problem there is that this syntax wouldn't support external
variables, and without them there's not much difference between that and
create_function.
troels knak-nielsen wrote:
What was the conclusion on Wez' patch from march [1
On Dec 16, 2007 8:56 PM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see how it'd help anything in debugging.
Presumably, a stack trace would now contain file and line number.
That's not binding. But the problem is, seeing this, one expects
closure. And it's no closure.
One might
On Dec 17, 2007 6:09 PM, Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't have time right now but we should go back and re-read those
discussions before opening a new one. I can probably do it over the next
couple of days. I am not necessary against supporting such a solution
but we need to make
On Dec 18, 2007 12:41 AM, Jeff Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reading the prior discussion, I think either $_SCOPE['x'] or the
lexical $x syntax is fine for accessing local variables in the
enclosing scope. But closures also should also support $this and
static:: when the closure is defined
On Dec 19, 2007 11:21 PM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So how big a part of PHP's userbase is that? I'm guessing, it's small.
If it's small, we don't need it in the language anyway.
I think we need it. In the current incarnation, anonymous functions
are so impractical to use,
On Dec 20, 2007 12:44 AM, 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 interesting and useful direction
to take for PHP.
On Dec 20, 2007 1:51 AM, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the whole functional programming thing.
But PHP is not an FP language and wasn't built to be one. If one needs
an FP language, why not look into languages built with that purpose?
We can change it then. PHP wasn't
(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 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
I have another observation about names.
Instead of using an arbitrary name, as the name of the function,
wouldn't it be possible to let the name be derived from the
function-body. Eg., if you took the function-body's tokens and created
a hash from them. This would have two implications: 1)
On Dec 23, 2007 2:23 AM, Christian Seiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all: I don't quite understand what you mean when you want to
serialize a function (closure or not)? The opcodes? Ok, sure, with the
current PHP implementation you can serialize the variable used to CALL
the function
One problem, I have with this proposal is, that it isn't much like
javascript anyway. In javascript, there is a distinction between array
and hashmap, with different syntaxes. If anything, the syntax should
probably be {'foo' = 1, 'bar' = 2}.
I don't think the added noise is worth it though, since
On Feb 18, 2008 8:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
during last six months I've studied a language construct called Traits.
It is a construct to allow fine-grained code reuse and in my opinon
this would be a nice feature for PHP, which I did like to propose here.
The following RFC deals
On Feb 19, 2008 9:54 PM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how about 'possesses' or 'exhibits' - both these words are closer to the
natural language usage of 'trait' with regard to a subject.
John exhibits a trait
Jack possesses a trait
I prefer ``without`` over ``except``,
On Feb 19, 2008 10:51 PM, Evert | Rooftop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aliasing doesn't make a lot of sense, as you can always :
function newMethod() {
return $this-oldMethod();
}
just seems like unneeded complexity, without a clear benefit..
I believe the idea was to resolve nameclashes.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Felipe Pena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
class test {
static public function +Itest testing($instance) {
return $instance;
}
}
A more sane syntax, might be something like:
class test {
static function testing($instance) : Itest
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- In PHP 5, object storage is resources done right. I don't think
we should be using the resource infrastructure for this
implementation and would prefer to use the object one. It's better.
I suggest to take a look at
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Dmitry Stogov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't like lexical keyword, because it can be used anywhere in function
(e.q. inside if or loop statement), however lexical variables must be the
That does sound wtf-y, indeed. Is that allowed with the global
keyword?
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another subject I would like to see now the closures has been brought up
again
is, how about adding type hinting in method/function prototypes:
function call(function $callback)
{
$callback();
}
Good
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:41 AM, Lars Strojny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Stas,
Am Sonntag, den 29.06.2008, 15:20 -0700 schrieb Stanislav Malyshev:
[...]
If we use this syntax, and $view-escape is not defined, should we
call __call or __get?
That's indeed a good question. Calling __get()
First, apologies if this has been discussed before. I couldn't find
any evidence to suggest that it has, but it kind of surprises me.
As strings aren't objects in PHP, __toString is quite a useful
construct, but it begs the question as to why there aren't
__toprimitve-type for each of the
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Moriyoshi Koizumi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks,
I created a library that may draw some attention. Boost.PHP is a set of
macros and C++ classes that wrap around common Zend Engine structs that
Is Boost.PHP affiliated with boost.org ?
--
troels
--
PHP
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Arvids Godjuks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, you can do that right now, PHP supports that for ages.
?php
$myVar = 'print';
$myVar('Hello!'); // Outputs hello
?
Partly because I can't resist being smug, partly because it might
confuse someone, I have to
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Hannes Magnusson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I totally agree. Its really annoying needing to type $ all the time,
not to mention how hard it is on Norwegian keyboards. Lets replace it
with £ !
There is even a patch available:
I just realised that his is valid PHP:
?php
var_dump(
array(
'foo' = 42,
'foo' = 53));
Producing the following output:
array(1) {
[foo]=
int(53)
}
I can anticipate that there may be practical reasons for this
feature, but I can't think up any scenario, where it wouldn't be a
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Ionut Gabriel Stan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I see there's nobody else that would like this but it's ok, at least
now we have namespaces so that
I don't have to come up with ugly names like my_map() for these kind of
helper functions.
I like the
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if you want to provide a set of helper/wrapper classes, appropriately
namespaced, something along the lines of:
MyFramework\Helpers\Array
MyFramework\Helpers\Database
MyFramework\Helpers\Session
etc.
If I want to use that
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:02 PM, mike mike...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to see it do the right thing in PHP 6, and perhaps if
I think everybody agrees to that. The question at hand, is what the
right thing is.
I, for one, think that the only sane choices are 1 or 2. The third
option is way too
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Richard Quadling
rquadl...@googlemail.com wrote:
Would it be at all possible to have an ini setting json.strict_encode = On
So, my code doesn't change, but I can activate it globally.
Essentially I don't want to shoot myself. I don't want to take the
safety
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Scott MacVicar sc...@macvicar.net wrote:
For now I'll be leaving it as is and adding a JSON_STRICT_ENCODE
parameter to the options flag. So you can use
json_encode($var, JSON_STRICT_ENCODE);
I'm really not a fan of named constants to change the semantics of
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Nathan Rixham nrix...@gmail.com wrote:
type hints are all ready there so adding primitives /should/ be possible
without any bc issues
PHP is loosely typed. Adding typehints to primitives would change
this. The only reason that it is working with object types, is
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Larry Garfield la...@garfieldtech.com wrote:
$f = function($a, $b) use ($y, $z) global ($x, $w) {
It would still leave the static keyword as an outlier. It wouldn't
make sense to declare a static by-ref.
Another problem with this, is that use and global doesn't
In a recent mail, some kind of issue regarding queryparams was
mentioned (Possibly related to namespaces). Could anybody explain what
the issue is, or point to where it's discussed?
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith m...@pooteeweet.org wrote:
- I guess we are not going to deal
I just realised that the following is valid php code:
class Foo {
function __construct() {
echo constructor called\n;
}
}
$f = new Foo();
$f-__construct();
Output:
constructor called
constructor called
I would have expected the second call to
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Edward Z. Yangezy...@mit.edu wrote:
Excerpts from troels knak-nielsen's message of Thu Jul 02 10:14:18 -0400 2009:
I would have expected the second call to __construct() to yield an error.
Why should it? Especially since this is idiomatic code:
class A {
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Markmark...@gmail.com wrote:
I personally would be highly in favor of adding type hinting/casting
BUT with the benifit that php actually becomes faster if you do things
like that. Afterall you can use way more effective c code if you know
what you expect right?
Hi list.
In advance, sorry for muddying the waters even further.
Following the current discussion about typehints to primitives, I'm
wondering if anyone have ever suggested to include some sort of
user-land contract system, such as the one that exists in
plt-scheme[1]
Given the dynamic nature
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Josh
Thompsonspam.goes.in.h...@gmail.com wrote:
troels knak-nielsen wrote:
- How do you know if it is a contract or the current object type hint?
The simplest solution would be to make one take precedence. You're not
likely to have both a class and a function
-- Forwarded message --
From: troels knak-nielsen troel...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Type hinting - Request for Discussion
To: Lukas Kahwe Smith m...@pooteeweet.org
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smithm...@pooteeweet.org
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM, u...@domain.invalid wrote:
I published a (work in progress) RFC today about replacing certain
errors with exceptions. I know that there already was something similiar
on the php6dev blog, but this is not completly the same, so awating your
comments:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Ford, Mike m.f...@leedsmet.ac.uk wrote:
Well, that sounds like a pretty good definition of a magic constant, so
maybe __CALLER__ might be appropriate as well?
It's not a constant, is it now?
__FILE__, __LINE__, __CLASS__ etc. can be resolved at compile-time.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Mathieu Suen
mathieu.s...@easyflirt.com wrote:
Yes that the same but only for PHP = 5.3.
I am more asking about performance.
You mean PHP 5.3 ?
In that case, I would strongly suggest that you use a procedural
style. create_function is slow, leaks memory and
Here's another extension for the same. Generates nice graphs too.
http://www.bytekit.org/
--
troels
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Graham Kelly sgkel...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
It sounds like what you want is VLD. http://pecl.php.net/package/vld
- Graham Kelly
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at
On 7/18/07, David Duong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since there isn't any comments on this, should I have posted this
elsewhere? or is it just that no one is interested?
It could be interesting to know, if the reason why this hasn't been
implemented already, is technical one, or a design
On 9/27/07, drysler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
i am practising with charsets at the moment and so i thought:
- How does PHP know the charset i use in my source-code?
- Are php-sources limited to specific charsets?
- In which areas you have to be aware of the source-code-charset?
If taint-mode is intended for testing only, it would never be
something, which was turned on per default. Then maybe a tool such as
php-sat ( http://www.program-transformation.org/PHP/PhpSat ) is a
better solution? It seems to me like there is a rather big overlap
between the projects.
--
troels
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:38 PM, mathieu.suen mathieu.s...@easyflirt.com wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering if there is some effort for having continuation in php.
Or is there already some construction for continuation?
phaux (http://code.google.com/p/phaux/) is an attempt at creating a
Hi list.
We log all errors that happens in our production environment, but as
fatal errors can't be handled from within php, we end up with little
information to go on for further debugging. I'm not very familiar with
the php internals code, but I managed to throw in a hack that appears
to work.
2010/3/22 Johannes Schlüter johan...@php.net:
A one second delay is no option there. And what actually happens is that
the warning triggers your custom error handler. After that it sleeps
then it dies.
What do you mean by no option? Otherwise yes, that's what it does.
This also creates a
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Herman Radtke hermanrad...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you mean by no option? Otherwise yes, that's what it does.
Using sleep there is not a good practice. Since the custom error
handler is triggered, there is no need for the sleep call anyways.
So control isn't
Hi Stan.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Stan Vassilev sv_for...@fmethod.com wrote:
Thanks for your patch, but you're going to affect a whole group of users who
do advanced logging and recovery in the shutdown phase. This is why these
things have to be considered when they're first added.
Hi
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith m...@pooteeweet.org wrote:
On 25.03.2010, at 14:48, David Soria Parra wrote:
Stefan what do you think about stackable traits ?
Woha .. that code really scares me.
While I like features like this in other languages, I think it would
be a
$result = new ResultMaker()-getIt();
Isn't this issue just a matter of defining one thing as being correct
and then get on with it? There are lots of ambiguities in php's
grammar already.
--
troels
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Benjamin Eberlei kont...@beberlei.de wrote:
So currently preferred over my patch are two solutions:
1. Just create a DateTimeValue object that is immutable, not optimizing PHP
to handle it with efficient garbage collection.
2. One step further, add a static
55 matches
Mail list logo
