[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't want to seem naggish, but what do you think?
On 3 Nov 2003, at 8:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that objects are accounted for by references and id, it
should be possible to use them as keys in an associative array. That
might be an interesting
Last weekend I took a roll of Kodak T-Max 100 with the MZ-S
When developed, the film is hopelessly under exposed, as if
the flashes had never been used. I was using an off camera
FGZ-360 flash to fire two 400W heads.
Any thoughts on why this might be?
Kind regards
Kevin
--
__
This one time, at band camp, Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last weekend I took a roll of Kodak T-Max 100 with the MZ-S
When developed, the film is hopelessly under exposed, as if
the flashes had never been used. I was using an off camera
FGZ-360 flash to fire two 400W heads.
Any
Hi Christian,
Personally I don't like having two ways of doing things. It makes it harder
for people to read scripts.
However, I think the proposed syntax is significantly more elegant than
today's array() which makes me think twice about the idea and possibly
making an exception to the rule.
Very cool.
How about supporting .. syntax, btw. as in [1..3] or [a..z]? Might
no be the worth, just thinking out loud ;)
Christian Schneider wrote:
I propose to add an alternative (backward compatible) short array
creation syntax:
$a = [ 1, 2, 3 ]; and $a = [ 'a' = 42, 'b' = foo ];
It can
Very cool.
How about supporting .. syntax, btw. as in [1..3] or [a..z]? Might
no be the worth, just thinking out loud ;)
might not be worth it..
Christian Schneider wrote:
I propose to add an alternative (backward compatible) short array
creation syntax:
$a = [ 1, 2, 3 ]; and $a = [ 'a' = 42,
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:42:15 -0800
Sara Golemon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're interrested in writing the patch yourself (and this sounds like a
rather minor one), your best bet is to just write it and submit it for
review (Note: It wouldn't make it into PHP4 as that branch is frozen and
Your idea is even cooler...;)
I would like to have these in PHP.
Kouber
Michael Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Very cool.
How about supporting .. syntax, btw. as in [1..3] or [a..z]? Might
no be the worth, just thinking out loud ;)
Christian Schneider
If you really wanted to do this you could use a serialize()d version of the
object as the key.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now that objects are accounted for by references and id, it should be
possible to use them as keys in an associative array. That might be an
Andi Gutmans wrote:
I guess I think it'd be interesting to see what other's think. Also,
another point to check is if list() can also be converted into []
because having a hybrid wouldn't be too nice.
Having list() work the same way would be very sexy indeed:
[$a, $b] = [$b, $a];
To be honest I
Hi,
I'm submitting a patch to perform on the fly MD5/SHA1 digest
calculation of a file uploaded via the HTTP POST method. Since it is
not uncommon for applications to require some digest of a freshly
uploaded file, doing the math directly in the buffer where the file is
being read can save
Hi,
I am working on porting PHP onto NetWare.
I am a beginner to building PHP source code for Linux / Unix. I am
looking for a document that takes me through a step-by-step guidelines
of doing this. Can someone point me to a link for this?
Also, I am seeing some problems of memory corruption
Hi
The problem i see when using array() (or list()) is that it nearly looks
like it is a function, but it isn't. Using [] instead would clearly
mark this difference.
array() and list() are special language constructs, why shouldn't they look a bit
special?
This doesn't break backwards
On 05 November 2003 08:50, Andi Gutmans contributed these pearls of wisdom:
At 12:33 AM 11/5/2003 +0100, Christian Schneider wrote:
I propose to add an alternative (backward compatible) short
array creation syntax: $a = [ 1, 2, 3 ]; and $a = [ 'a' =
42, 'b' = foo ];
Personally I don't
I find having to encrypt to and from a file quite a pain. I create a message
in PHP, save it to a temporary file, encrypt it to a second temporary file,
read this file, then mail the contents. If you are working with the message,
either before or after encryption, in PHP then this process clearly
s0niX wrote:
The problem i see when using array() (or list()) is that it nearly looks
like it is a function, but it isn't. Using [] instead would clearly
mark this difference.
array() and list() are special language constructs, why shouldn't
they look a bit special?
This doesn't break
I like it a lot as well. Having the [] syntax also support range()-like
calls would be a very nice idea as well. :D
Regards,
Manuzhai
Mike Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
s0niX wrote:
The problem i see when using array() (or list()) is that it nearly looks
Hi !
In the same series ..
I have no patch to provide but i've written two functions related to
php_openssl:
openssl_pubkey_export
openssl_pubkey_export_to_file
That simply allow the export of public keys that seems to be not possible
before.
I there is no special reason for
On Wednesday 05 November 2003 09:49, Andi Gutmans wrote:
However, I think the proposed syntax is significantly more elegant than
today's array() which makes me think twice about the idea and possibly
making an exception to the rule. I think it'll improve the look of PHP
scripts. Also I think
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Personally I don't like having two ways of doing things. It makes it
harder for people to read scripts.
It looks like the one way of doing two separate things.
I mean that semanics of two usages of square brackets as operator is
inverse depending on whether it is used in
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:34:52 +0700
Alexey Trunyov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Personally I don't like having two ways of doing things. It makes it
harder for people to read scripts.
It looks like the one way of doing two separate things.
No, it looks like someone
I do not like the new syntax at all. If anything it seems rather unnatural and
what do you save, typing of 5 characters that makes it clear that this is an
array to even the most novice of users? It certainly not going to make the
code any faster and if anything will only add confusion.
Firm
Hi Andi, Christian--
From a logical standpoint, I think this could be very confusing. To me,
for one, square brackets imply reference, not assignment. Taking
something that means take something out of the array and now using it
to mean put something in the array makes the language a bit less
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 08:06:53 -0500
Ilia Alshanetsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not like the new syntax at all. If anything it seems rather unnatural and
what do you save, typing of 5 characters that makes it clear that this is an
array to even the most novice of users? It certainly not
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Ananth Kesari wrote:
I am a beginner to building PHP source code for Linux / Unix. I am
looking for a document that takes me through a step-by-step guidelines
of doing this. Can someone point me to a link for this?
http://www.php.net/manual/en/install.unix.php
Derick
--
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
I do not like the new syntax at all. If anything it seems rather unnatural and
what do you save, typing of 5 characters that makes it clear that this is an
array to even the most novice of users? It certainly not going to make the
code any faster
I'm always open to patches; please send it as I plan to do some work on
openssl in the near future.
Thanks!
--Wez.
- Original Message -
From: Eric COLINET [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV]
Ok, I tried to just listen to what people are saying but this comment
went too far ;-)
Antony Dovgal wrote:
No, it looks like someone trying to turn PHP into Perl (or Python).
I'm just trying to improve PHP. And I write _a lot_ of PHP code, so I
have some idea about where the syntax could be
Hi,
I'm new to the list. I've come trough your post and as a PHP end user I
can say that array are easy to use but they could be a lot easier...
You don't want Perl features? Please don't delete the for each operator :=)
-Message d'origine-
De : Christian Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL
On November 5, 2003 10:34 am, Christian Schneider wrote:
PHP is a mix of C, Perl and other styles anyway, why deny it? It's
strength is that it's a pragmatic and simple language but that doesn't
mean that nothing should be changed ever.
PHP strength (IMHO) is it's simple and clear syntax,
Eric,
Might I suggest that if you submit a patch for this, you add just one
function and check for a file:// prefix to determine if the user want to
work with a file or variable? This is the way certificates are handled at
present, and I used this method for my patch to try and be consistent
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 16:34:52 +0100
Christian Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just trying to improve PHP. And I write _a lot_ of PHP code, so I
have some idea about where the syntax could be improved IMHO.
changing the syntax is not the best way imho.
PHP is a mix of C, Perl and
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On November 5, 2003 10:34 am, Christian Schneider wrote:
PHP is a mix of C, Perl and other styles anyway, why deny it? It's
strength is that it's a pragmatic and simple language but that doesn't
mean that nothing should be changed ever.
PHP
Antony Dovgal wrote:
do you agree, that $a[] = ''; and $a = []; look almost similar for newbies?
And they both deal with arrays. That's not confusing to me.
Why have $a[] = ''; then in the first place? You already have
array_push($a, ''). Or do you seriously think $a[] = ''; shouldn't be there?
On November 5, 2003 11:21 am, you wrote:
Well, like I said before, I am not sure this is a clear case of that. I'm
probably the biggest defender around of the no-magic rule, but [] does
imply something array-related to most people, so I think the magic part is
much smaller than in other
At 11:48 AM 11/5/2003 -0500, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On November 5, 2003 11:21 am, you wrote:
Well, like I said before, I am not sure this is a clear case of that. I'm
probably the biggest defender around of the no-magic rule, but [] does
imply something array-related to most people, so I
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
I do not like the new syntax at all. If anything it seems rather unnatural and
what do you save, typing of 5 characters that makes it clear that this is an
array to even the most novice of users? It certainly not going to make the
code any faster and
On 05 November 2003 15:57, Ilia Alshanetsky contributed these pearls of
wisdom:
On November 5, 2003 10:34 am, Christian Schneider wrote:
PHP is a mix of C, Perl and other styles anyway, why deny it?
It's strength is that it's a pragmatic and simple language
but that doesn't mean that nothing
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On November 5, 2003 10:34 am, Christian Schneider wrote:
PHP is a mix of C, Perl and other styles anyway, why deny it? It's
strength is that it's a pragmatic and simple language but that doesn't
mean that nothing should be changed
Andi Gutmans wrote:
I don't believe in saving characters.
Agreed, it's not about saving characters (only).
Anyway, it's no biggy and if most people here think it shouldn't be
added then that's fine with me.
Ok, a quick head count gave 9 people pro, 6 people con and 3 people I
couldn't figure
On Nov 5, 2003, at 11:52 AM, Marco Tabini wrote:
But isn't there a big difference between an assignment and a reference?
I, for one, think that language constructs should be as univocal as
possible in order to minimize confusion, lest we end up having to read
something like:
$a =
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Christian Schneider wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
I don't believe in saving characters.
Agreed, it's not about saving characters (only).
Anyway, it's no biggy and if most people here think it shouldn't be
added then that's fine with me.
Ok, a quick head count gave 9
Marco Tabini wrote:
$a = [[1,2,3],[1=[1,3,2,2], a=[[1,2,3,4],4,[1,2]]];
$a = array(array(1,2,3),array(1=array(1,3,2,2),
a=array(array(1,2,3,4),4,array(1,2)));
What was your point again? ;-)
- Chris
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
Hi,
One of my co-workers, Brian Fløe, found that PHP could be crashed by
passing an array to strip_tags() and other native functions expecting a
string.
I debugged the issue, and it turns out that the problem is in the way
_convert_to_string() calls zend_error() to emit a notice about the
George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Nov 5, 2003, at 11:52 AM, Marco Tabini wrote:
But isn't there a big difference between an assignment and a reference?
I, for one, think that language constructs should be as univocal as
possible in order to minimize confusion, lest we end up having to read
Christian Schneider wrote:
Marco Tabini wrote:
$a = [[1,2,3],[1=[1,3,2,2], a=[[1,2,3,4],4,[1,2]]];
$a = array(array(1,2,3),array(1=array(1,3,2,2),
a=array(array(1,2,3,4),4,array(1,2)));
Besides my previous points, something even more abominable:
$a = [1,2,$b[11]];
Is that confusing enough
On 05 November 2003 16:48, Ilia Alshanetsky contributed these pearls of
wisdom:
I mean c'mon, is 5 characters that much of a problem and is
absolute code clarity not worth those 5 characters? Character
efficiency is done in Perl, where you can do things like ~=
and @_, but that makes Perl
On 05 November 2003 17:06, Marco Tabini contributed these pearls of wisdom:
Christian Schneider wrote:
Marco Tabini wrote:
$a = [[1,2,3],[1=[1,3,2,2], a=[[1,2,3,4],4,[1,2]]];
$a = array(array(1,2,3),array(1=array(1,3,2,2),
a=array(array(1,2,3,4),4,array(1,2)));
Besides my previous
On 05 November 2003 16:52, Marco Tabini contributed these pearls of wisdom:
$a = [[1,2,3],[1=[1,3,2,2], a=[[1,2,3,4],4,[1,2]]];
I don't know about you, but I can't even begin to count the
brackets in there... :-)
At quick glance says it looks unbalanced. A count shows why: 7 [s and 6 ]s
Ford, Mike [LSS] wrote:
On 05 November 2003 17:06, Marco Tabini contributed these pearls of wisdom:
Christian Schneider wrote:
Marco Tabini wrote:
$a = [[1,2,3],[1=[1,3,2,2], a=[[1,2,3,4],4,[1,2]]];
$a = array(array(1,2,3),array(1=array(1,3,2,2),
a=array(array(1,2,3,4),4,array(1,2)));
On November 5, 2003 12:01 pm, Ford, Mike [LSS] wrote:
I don't think the number of characters is the main issue here -- it's about
having a *nicer* set of characters. Personally, I'd be still be in favour
(although not quite as much) if the proposed syntax were [[[1,2,3]]] -- for
me, it's
OK .. I'm a wobbler.
I think it would be cool to have the cleaner alternative syntax; I think I'd
use it *in some situations and not others*, and I think that that in itself
would make my code virtually unmaintainable by anyone else.
As Andi originally said, having more than one way to do things
At 11:58 AM 11/5/2003 -0500, George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Nov 5, 2003, at 11:52 AM, Marco Tabini wrote:
But isn't there a big difference between an assignment and a reference?
I, for one, think that language constructs should be as univocal as
possible in order to minimize confusion, lest we
Think backwards.. Will you be able to convince
any perl/python/javascript developer to use
array(), list(), range() structs?
r
$a = [1,2,$b[11]];
Is that confusing enough for you? ;-)
Mt.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
Romans Malinovskis wrote:
Think backwards.. Will you be able to convince
any perl/python/javascript developer to use
array(), list(), range() structs?
I really don't think this needs to be a concern. You can't be everything
to all people.
Mt.
r
$a = [1,2,$b[11]];
Is that confusing enough for
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Christian Schneider wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
I don't believe in saving characters.
Agreed, it's not about saving characters (only).
Anyway, it's no biggy and if most people here think it shouldn't be
added then that's fine with me.
Ok, a quick head count
On Nov 5, 2003, at 12:33 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Christian Schneider wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
I don't believe in saving characters.
Agreed, it's not about saving characters (only).
Anyway, it's no biggy and if most people here think it shouldn't be
added then that's fine
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Christian Schneider wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
I don't believe in saving characters.
Agreed, it's not about saving characters (only).
Anyway, it's no biggy and if most people here think it shouldn't be
added then that's fine with me.
Ok, a quick head count gave
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Christian Schneider wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
I don't believe in saving characters.
Agreed, it's not about saving characters (only).
Anyway, it's no biggy and if most people here think it shouldn't be
added then that's fine with me.
Ok, a quick head count
On Wednesday, Nov 5, 2003, at 17:48 Europe/Copenhagen, Andi Gutmans
wrote:
Anyway, it's no biggy and if most people here think it shouldn't be
added then that's fine with me.
I like the new syntax proposal, especially when passing arrays as
function parameters.
+1 here.
Edin
--
PHP
The devs are mostly at the conference now. I think it is easy to discuss.
I won't be surprised if cons after that are more than pros.
I think end-user / newbie votes should be rather considered than dev's since
they are ones who will be learning and getting used to this syntax. So why
don't
At 2003-11-05 09:59 +0100, Michael Walter wrote:
Very cool.
How about supporting .. syntax, btw. as in [1..3] or [a..z]? Might no be the
worth, just thinking out loud ;)
I'm also in favor of a shorter notation for array() and list().
In fact this also helps to ease the problem I have
with
Alle 18:48, mercoledì 5 novembre 2003, Romans Malinovskis ha scritto:
The devs are mostly at the conference now. I think it is easy to
discuss. I won't be surprised if cons after that are more than
pros.
I think end-user / newbie votes should be rather considered than
dev's since they are
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
At 2003-11-05 09:59 +0100, Michael Walter wrote:
Very cool.
How about supporting .. syntax, btw. as in [1..3] or [a..z]? Might no be the worth, just thinking out loud ;)
I'm also in favor of a shorter notation for array() and list().
In fact this also helps to
Michael Walter wrote:
$a = [1,2,$b[11]];
Is that confusing enough for you? ;-)
What's confusing about it?
The fact that $b[11] references an item of an array, while
[1,2,$b[11]] assigns values to the array $a. The fact that you (and,
probably, most of us) can't tell right off the bat is a
I like some of the Python syntax. But some of it is cumbersome. Same
with PHP. But I think PHP is closer to what I want so what's wrong with
trying to improve it where it's possible (and easily done)?
agree, and you can easily make PHP code not readable with such improvements.
again, I can't
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree
$a = [1,2,$b[11]] is semantically inconsistent.
Yeah, I agree to disagree on that one, too :)
Actually, do you realize that you use () both for grouping and for
application? I can't see anything wrong with using square brackets for
array element access
On Nov 5, 2003, at 12:54 PM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 11:58 AM 11/5/2003 -0500, George Schlossnagle wrote:
is that any less clear than
$a = array(array(1,2,3), array(1 = array(1,3,2,2), array(a =
array(array(1,2,3,4), 4, array(1,2)));
Both examples can be
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003, Ford, Mike [LSS] wrote:
On 05 November 2003 16:48, Ilia Alshanetsky contributed these pearls of
wisdom:
I mean c'mon, is 5 characters that much of a problem and is
absolute code clarity not worth those 5 characters? Character
efficiency is done in Perl,
On Nov 5, 2003, at 1:29 PM, Marco Tabini wrote:
$a = [1,2,$b[11]] is semantically inconsistent.
How so? Is
foo(array(1,2));
semantically inconsistent? On one hand () is used with a language
construct (array()), whereas in the other context it indicates
arguments to a function. I think that
George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Nov 5, 2003, at 1:29 PM, Marco Tabini wrote:
$a = [1,2,$b[11]] is semantically inconsistent.
How so? Is
I think I've already explained why.
foo(array(1,2));
semantically inconsistent? On one hand () is used with a language
construct (array()), whereas in the
+1 for the [] syntax. I also feel it's much more intuitive. Calling
(what looks like) a function to make an array seems plain silly to me.
Shane
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Marco Tabini wrote:
George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Nov 5, 2003, at 1:29 PM, Marco Tabini wrote:
$a = [1,2,$b[11]] is semantically inconsistent.
How so? Is
I think I've already explained why.
Not really understandable, though.
foo(array(1,2));
semantically inconsistent? On one hand () is
On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 14:03, David Enderson wrote:
I believe the ultimate goal of PHP is to have a quick and dirty
language that is easy to read, use, and learn. While Rasmus's comment
I complete disagree with the quick and dirty statement. Maybe at one
time, but I think a lot of effort has
Robert,
And I don't agree with it either. I like quick, but I don't like dirty.
I just thought from what I'd read on this list over the last year that
it was a goal. You may be correct that I misinterpreted the current
goals of the language, and I'll be happy if you are right. :-)
--David
FWIW- (And I understand I'm late chiming in on this thread)
I'm -1 on this syntax.
It's Perlish and ugly. It is *not* PHP syntax.
-Sara
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Nov 5, 2003, at 5:41 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
FWIW- (And I understand I'm late chiming in on this thread)
I'm -1 on this syntax.
It's Perlish and ugly. It is *not* PHP syntax.
To continue to play devils advocate, I actually find it C-ish and nice:
char foo[] = { a, b, c i told you so};
Anyway, it's no biggy and if most people here think it shouldn't be added
then that's fine with me.
Thies reminded me of something that should be considered here; we talked
about
and alternative array syntax for overloaded objects where all the array
indices are
required in one chunk to be able
Question :
is there any one of the supported platforms that dont support a 64 bit
integer
type. i'm not referring to the native int size.
for one i can think of Windows 95/98.
i'm porting a library and i need to know this so i can determine how to
proceed.
l0t3k
--
PHP Internals - PHP
I noticed that echo $object statements in PHP 5 display object ids that
are kept by the engine, so this data is already in the string form and
it is data that exists. As for as a use for this feature, one can't
easily say there is not a use; there have been times when I wished to
have this
George Schlossnagle wrote:
George (thinking [] is pretty but disliking alternative syntaxes)
Ok, let me recap my short visit on this mailing list:
1) Dangling commas in function calls were considered bloat
2) Adding the local vars to debug_backtrace() was silently ignored
3) A prettier array
64 bit integer support is really a function of the compiler, not the OS.
The windows compiler certainly does support a 64 bit integer type (INT64
iirc).
There is probably a configure check somewhere (the bundled mysql client
library from 4.3 branch comes to mind) that you can use to make the
After all this I guess I have to maintain my own PHP branch and hope for
PHP6 to address some of my issues. Or switch to another language at some
point, because a language to me is a tool, not a religion.
This is exactly the point. Why waste so much energy on deciding how to
spell out your
Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
spell out your array definitions. The decision has been made a long time
ago to use the array() syntax. Adding alternatives adds nothing but the
I was under the impression that syntax changes are possible. Silly me.
Try/catch however are a fundamental extension to the
thanks, wez
There is probably a configure check somewhere (the bundled mysql client
library from 4.3 branch comes to mind) that you can use to make the
decision
on 64 bit support.
my concern is not the configure check, per se. im just concerned that having
the
extension depend on 64bit
Hi,
Conference is over, core devs should be in their planes now
and here are already some photos:
http://www.phpconference.de/2003/photos_en.php
Don't miss the party girl on the front page on
http://www.phpconference.de/2003/index_en.php :-)
Thanks to everybody (especially the speakers) for
86 matches
Mail list logo
