Joey Smith wrote:
Maybe I'm up in the night, but I've just opened 50728 because I discovered that
all
the PDO drivers had a hardcoded 0 where I would expect to see the
driver-specific
error - a user reported this in ##PHP on Freenode and I take a stab at writing
the
patches that would let the
In Online Document say's:
Users may not change the array itself from the callback function. e.g.
Add/delete elements, unset elements, etc. If the array that
array_walk() is applied to is changed, the behavior of this function
is undefined, and unpredictable.
So I'm use Use Optional param( [,
Hello,
At Debian we are planning to include PHP 5.3 in Squeeze, the next stable
release. As such, I would like to know for example when we could expect
5.3.2 and 5.3.3 to be released.
On a slightly different topic, I'd like to express that I would like to
improve the communication between us
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Raphael Geissert wrote:
At Debian we are planning to include PHP 5.3 in Squeeze, the next stable
release. As such, I would like to know for example when we could expect
5.3.2 and 5.3.3 to be released.
5.3.2 is on the way, but not sure when exactly it will be released.
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:32 PM, mm w 0xcafef...@gmail.com wrote:
cast is not needed in PHP
i 'd rather be more interesting in
class Obj {
function __catch($data, $type) {
//$type [ static_method, method, get_property, set_property]
if (observed $type ==
This might be better served by taking it to php-general, because I don't
think you need to pin your question so hard to the behaviour of
array_walk(). Here's a quick example of (if I understood your question
correctly) how you might solve it using array_udiff_uassoc and 5.3's new
'closure' syntax
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Raphael Geissert wrote:
At Debian we are planning to include PHP 5.3 in Squeeze, the next stable
release. As such, I would like to know for example when we could expect
5.3.2 and 5.3.3 to be released.
5.3.2 is on the way, but not sure when
Hi again,
Disclaimer: although discussions about this topic tend to be heated (and
hated) this is not the usual short_open_tag thread. Please refrain from
talking about other previous proposals and whether short_open_tag should be
dropped or not.
As mentioned on my other post, at Debian we
Raphael Geissert wrote:
However, we would like to contribute in the quest to make applications stop
using short_open_tag. To do so, we have decided to throw an E_DEPRECATED
warning when an application makes use of short_open_tag. The current
implementation can be found at [1].
How does
don't worry it's only for people who are working with MVC and
RootObject structure, there is too much magics already and __cast is
not needed at all,
as we cannot monkey patch to add an observer on itself, a nice
solution should have a catchable object so __catch any calls
function __catch($data,
How does this have *anything* to do with the discussion at hand?
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:09 PM, mm w 0xcafef...@gmail.com wrote:
don't worry it's only for people who are working with MVC and
RootObject structure, there is too much magics already and __cast is
not needed at all,
as we cannot
the multiplication of magic, the pointed point, need to read more carefully
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Eddie Drapkin oorza...@gmail.com wrote:
How does this have *anything* to do with the discussion at hand?
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:09 PM, mm w 0xcafef...@gmail.com wrote:
don't worry
What you're proposing is just forcing __call, _callStatic, __get and
__set into a single method, which does nothing to reduce the amount of
magic, only obfuscate it. And it certainly offers no alternative to
__cast, at least not that I can see.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:11 PM, mm w
I am not forcing anything, it's already there, that's definitely a
more useful magic, if people would add a new one, __cast is not
critical, catchable objects are __catch even if exists, so my point I
'd rather see useful requests than a unseful one e.g __cast
from my perspective __toString and
Eddie Drapkin wrote:
What you're proposing is just forcing __call, _callStatic, __get and
__set into a single method, which does nothing to reduce the amount of
magic, only obfuscate it. And it certainly offers no alternative to
__cast, at least not that I can see.
I agree, moving all magic
Joey Smith wrote:
This might be better served by taking it to php-general, because I don't
think you need to pin your question so hard to the behaviour of
array_walk(). Here's a quick example of (if I understood your question
correctly) how you might solve it using array_udiff_uassoc and 5.3's
I don't move any magics,I am worried about your knowledge of php,
there's people to give you money ? weird, set get call are only call
when something doesn't exist catch or catch-able concept is to be able
to catch any existing calls no the dynamic ones.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Clint
I don't move any magics, I'm worried your knowledge of social skills? Theirs
people be your friends? Weird
On Jan 12, 2010 9:10 PM, mm w 0xcafef...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't move any magics,I am worried about your knowledge of php,
there's people to give you money ? weird, set get call are only
:-D, without any magic, I am sorry if I hurt you I though you were
tougher than a cookie, don't worry about my friends I have plenty on
face-cooked, but for God Sake I am still eating alone at noon 8-)
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Chris Stockton
chrisstockto...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't
19 matches
Mail list logo
