php-general Digest 17 Nov 2011 14:57:30 -0000 Issue 7572
php-general Digest 17 Nov 2011 14:57:30 - Issue 7572 Topics (messages 315721 through 315721): Re: no regrets after doing this venture... 315721 by: Marc Guay Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: php-general-digest-subscr...@lists.php.net To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: php-general-digest-unsubscr...@lists.php.net To post to the list, e-mail: php-gene...@lists.php.net -- ---BeginMessage--- pHi Friend!brI knew things couldnt get any worse I consider myself lucky to have found this now im in this for the long run you should consider trying itbra href=http://lacadenasport.es/profile/31AlanWalsh/;http://lacadenasport.es/profile/31AlanWalsh//abrsee you./p This list is for PHP discussion, not HTML. Snipe! ---End Message---
php-general Digest 18 Nov 2011 05:40:26 -0000 Issue 7573
php-general Digest 18 Nov 2011 05:40:26 - Issue 7573 Topics (messages 315722 through 315740): Re: Sniping on the List 315722 by: Tedd Sperling 315723 by: Stuart Dallas 315724 by: Tedd Sperling 315725 by: HallMarc Websites 315727 by: Stuart Dallas 315728 by: Robert Cummings 315729 by: Tamara Temple 315730 by: Tamara Temple 315733 by: Tedd Sperling 315734 by: Geoff Shang 315735 by: Fredric L. Rice 315736 by: Fredric L. Rice 315737 by: Stuart Dallas 315738 by: George Langley 315739 by: Stuart Dallas 315740 by: Robert Cummings Re: Think I found a PHP bug 315726 by: Tim Streater socket_recv 315731 by: Tim Streater 315732 by: Mike Mackintosh Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: php-general-digest-subscr...@lists.php.net To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: php-general-digest-unsubscr...@lists.php.net To post to the list, e-mail: php-gene...@lists.php.net -- ---BeginMessage--- On Nov 15, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Steven Staples wrote: tamouse.li...@gmail.com sent: tedd.sperl...@gmail.com wrote: PS: I know it's not Friday, but this question came up in class yesterday and I thought maybe all of you might like to guess why null is Wednesday? Wait.. What?? $ php -r 'echo date(l,NULL),\n;' Wednesday Cos: $ php -r 'echo date(r,NULL),\n;' Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 -0600 (Personally, I would have thought Thursday should be NULL, but that's just me. And Thursday.) Actually, It *is* Thursday if you use UTC: $ TZ=UTC php -r 'echo date(r,NULL),\n;' Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + :P Perfect example of Tedd's last comment about being proven wrong (even though TECHNICALLY it isn't) Good job :) To all: Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take. The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + -- and that was a Thursday. The second before (i.e., 31 December, 1969 23:59:59:59 + ) was null, which was Wednesday. Now one might argue that everything before was null and I could accept that. But here's my code and reasoning, please follow: $string = null; $seconds = strtotime($string);// change string into seconds date = getdate($seconds);// change seconds into a date $computedDate = $date['mday'] . ' ' . $date['month'] . ', ' . $date['year'] . ' : ' .$date['weekday']; echo($computedDate);// show date Thus, null is Wednesday. Now, why is this wrong? Cheers, tedd _ t...@sperling.com http://sperling.com ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On 17 Nov 2011, at 16:01, Tedd Sperling wrote: To all: Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take. The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + -- and that was a Thursday. The second before (i.e., 31 December, 1969 23:59:59:59 + ) was null, which was Wednesday. I take issue with this. The second before was -1 seconds from the epoch. Null is the absence of a value, so you can't get to null by simple arithmetic. I learnt about negative numbers from the Greeks. And no, I'm not going to comment on their current mathematical difficulties. Hmm. D'oh! But the point still stands: -1 !== null. -Stuart -- Stuart Dallas 3ft9 Ltd http://3ft9.com/---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Stuart Dallas wrote: On 17 Nov 2011, at 16:01, Tedd Sperling wrote: To all: Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take. The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + -- and that was a Thursday. The second before (i.e., 31 December, 1969 23:59:59:59 + ) was null, which was Wednesday. I take issue with this. The second before was -1 seconds from the epoch. Null is the absence of a value, so you can't get to null by simple arithmetic. I learnt about negative numbers from the Greeks. And no, I'm not going to comment on their current mathematical difficulties. Hmm. D'oh! But the point still stands: -1 !== null. -Stuart Leave it to you to get all Greek on me. :-) Consider this -- do you think the second before the Big Bang was negative or null? Likewise, the Unix timestamp was defined to start at a specific point in time -- it does not address/define what time came before. Thus, what came before was not negative, but rather 'undefined'. I claim 'null' is a better fit for 'undefined' than negative -- plus it works. For example, if you push '-1' though strtotime(-1), you'll get Wednesday only one day a week -- whereas 'null' works every time. My point stands: null == Wednesday. :-) Cheers, tedd _ t...@sperling.com http://sperling.com ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- To all: Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take. The Unix
Re: [PHP] no regrets after doing this venture...
pHi Friend!brI knew things couldnt get any worse I consider myself lucky to have found this now im in this for the long run you should consider trying itbra href=http://lacadenasport.es/profile/31AlanWalsh/;http://lacadenasport.es/profile/31AlanWalsh//abrsee you./p This list is for PHP discussion, not HTML. Snipe! -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Sniping on the List
On Nov 15, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Steven Staples wrote: tamouse.li...@gmail.com sent: tedd.sperl...@gmail.com wrote: PS: I know it's not Friday, but this question came up in class yesterday and I thought maybe all of you might like to guess why null is Wednesday? Wait.. What?? $ php -r 'echo date(l,NULL),\n;' Wednesday Cos: $ php -r 'echo date(r,NULL),\n;' Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 -0600 (Personally, I would have thought Thursday should be NULL, but that's just me. And Thursday.) Actually, It *is* Thursday if you use UTC: $ TZ=UTC php -r 'echo date(r,NULL),\n;' Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + :P Perfect example of Tedd's last comment about being proven wrong (even though TECHNICALLY it isn't) Good job :) To all: Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take. The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + -- and that was a Thursday. The second before (i.e., 31 December, 1969 23:59:59:59 + ) was null, which was Wednesday. Now one might argue that everything before was null and I could accept that. But here's my code and reasoning, please follow: $string = null; $seconds = strtotime($string);// change string into seconds date = getdate($seconds);// change seconds into a date $computedDate = $date['mday'] . ' ' . $date['month'] . ', ' . $date['year'] . ' : ' .$date['weekday']; echo($computedDate);// show date Thus, null is Wednesday. Now, why is this wrong? Cheers, tedd _ t...@sperling.com http://sperling.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Sniping on the List
On 17 Nov 2011, at 16:01, Tedd Sperling wrote: To all: Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take. The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + -- and that was a Thursday. The second before (i.e., 31 December, 1969 23:59:59:59 + ) was null, which was Wednesday. I take issue with this. The second before was -1 seconds from the epoch. Null is the absence of a value, so you can't get to null by simple arithmetic. I learnt about negative numbers from the Greeks. And no, I'm not going to comment on their current mathematical difficulties. Hmm. D'oh! But the point still stands: -1 !== null. -Stuart -- Stuart Dallas 3ft9 Ltd http://3ft9.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Sniping on the List
On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Stuart Dallas wrote: On 17 Nov 2011, at 16:01, Tedd Sperling wrote: To all: Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take. The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + -- and that was a Thursday. The second before (i.e., 31 December, 1969 23:59:59:59 + ) was null, which was Wednesday. I take issue with this. The second before was -1 seconds from the epoch. Null is the absence of a value, so you can't get to null by simple arithmetic. I learnt about negative numbers from the Greeks. And no, I'm not going to comment on their current mathematical difficulties. Hmm. D'oh! But the point still stands: -1 !== null. -Stuart Leave it to you to get all Greek on me. :-) Consider this -- do you think the second before the Big Bang was negative or null? Likewise, the Unix timestamp was defined to start at a specific point in time -- it does not address/define what time came before. Thus, what came before was not negative, but rather 'undefined'. I claim 'null' is a better fit for 'undefined' than negative -- plus it works. For example, if you push '-1' though strtotime(-1), you'll get Wednesday only one day a week -- whereas 'null' works every time. My point stands: null == Wednesday. :-) Cheers, tedd _ t...@sperling.com http://sperling.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Sniping on the List
To all: Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take. The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + -- and that was a Thursday. The second before (i.e., 31 December, 1969 23:59:59:59 + ) was null, which was Wednesday. I take issue with this. The second before was -1 seconds from the epoch. Null is the absence of a value, so you can't get to null by simple arithmetic. I learnt about negative numbers from the Greeks. And no, I'm not going to comment on their current mathematical difficulties. Hmm. D'oh! But the point still stands: -1 !== null. -Stuart What if we were to throw in quantum duality in here? Null and !Null at the same time -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: Re: [PHP] Think I found a PHP bug
On 16 Nov 2011 at 16:30, Geoff Shang ge...@quitelikely.com wrote: On Wed, 15 Nov 2011, Tim Streater wrote: I find I need to do this: date_default_timezone_set (@date_default_timezone_get ()); in all my scripts since 5.x.x to avoid rude messages. Apart from the fact that I've not seen the rude messages of which you speak, even though I expected to, this won't help in this case. date_default_timezone_get() is returning the wrong timezone. Here's what I would otherwise get: Warning: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'UTC' for 'GMT/0.0/no DST' instead in /Users/tim/ -- Cheers -- Tim -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Sniping on the List
On 17 Nov 2011, at 16:33, Tedd Sperling wrote: On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Stuart Dallas wrote: On 17 Nov 2011, at 16:01, Tedd Sperling wrote: To all: Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take. The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + -- and that was a Thursday. The second before (i.e., 31 December, 1969 23:59:59:59 + ) was null, which was Wednesday. I take issue with this. The second before was -1 seconds from the epoch. Null is the absence of a value, so you can't get to null by simple arithmetic. I learnt about negative numbers from the Greeks. And no, I'm not going to comment on their current mathematical difficulties. Hmm. D'oh! But the point still stands: -1 !== null. -Stuart Leave it to you to get all Greek on me. :-) Consider this -- do you think the second before the Big Bang was negative or null? I don't know. There's no point concerning ourselves with unanswerable questions. Likewise, the Unix timestamp was defined to start at a specific point in time -- it does not address/define what time came before. Thus, what came before was not negative, but rather 'undefined'. I claim 'null' is a better fit for 'undefined' than negative -- plus it works. The epoch specifies the exact time that 0 represents. It makes no claims as far as that being the start of anything... defined as the number of seconds elapsed since midnight Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) of Thursday, January 1, 1970 (Unix times are defined, but negative, before that date) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time] For example, if you push '-1' though strtotime(-1), you'll get Wednesday only one day a week -- whereas 'null' works every time. Technically I see that as a bug. I believe strtotime(null) should return null, but due to the way type inference works, null is interpreted as 0. The point here being that you're not getting the time at null, you're getting the time at 0. My point stands: null == Wednesday. :-) It may stand, but it's standing on foundations of null space :) -Stuart -- Stuart Dallas 3ft9 Ltd http://3ft9.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Sniping on the List
On 11-11-17 11:33 AM, HallMarc Websites wrote: To all: Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take. The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + -- and that was a Thursday. The second before (i.e., 31 December, 1969 23:59:59:59 + ) was null, which was Wednesday. I take issue with this. The second before was -1 seconds from the epoch. Null is the absence of a value, so you can't get to null by simple arithmetic. I learnt about negative numbers from the Greeks. And no, I'm not going to comment on their current mathematical difficulties. Hmm. D'oh! But the point still stands: -1 !== null. -Stuart What if we were to throw in quantum duality in here? Null and !Null at the same time False Cheers, Rob. -- E-Mail Disclaimer: Information contained in this message and any attached documents is considered confidential and legally protected. This message is intended solely for the addressee(s). Disclosure, copying, and distribution are prohibited unless authorized. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Sniping on the List
On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Tedd Sperling tedd.sperl...@gmail.com wrote: On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Stuart Dallas wrote: On 17 Nov 2011, at 16:01, Tedd Sperling wrote: To all: Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take. The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + -- and that was a Thursday. The second before (i.e., 31 December, 1969 23:59:59:59 + ) was null, which was Wednesday. I take issue with this. The second before was -1 seconds from the epoch. Null is the absence of a value, so you can't get to null by simple arithmetic. I learnt about negative numbers from the Greeks. And no, I'm not going to comment on their current mathematical difficulties. Hmm. D'oh! But the point still stands: -1 !== null. -Stuart Leave it to you to get all Greek on me. :-) Consider this -- do you think the second before the Big Bang was negative or null? Likewise, the Unix timestamp was defined to start at a specific point in time -- it does not address/define what time came before. Thus, what came before was not negative, but rather 'undefined'. I claim 'null' is a better fit for 'undefined' than negative -- plus it works. For example, if you push '-1' though strtotime(-1), you'll get Wednesday only one day a week -- whereas 'null' works every time. My point stands: null == Wednesday. :-) Cheers, tedd _ t...@sperling.com http://sperling.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php As I clearly demonstrated, that depends on where you're standing :) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Sniping on the List
On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Tedd Sperling tedd.sperl...@gmail.com wrote: On Nov 15, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Steven Staples wrote: tamouse.li...@gmail.com sent: tedd.sperl...@gmail.com wrote: PS: I know it's not Friday, but this question came up in class yesterday and I thought maybe all of you might like to guess why null is Wednesday? Wait.. What?? $ php -r 'echo date(l,NULL),\n;' Wednesday Cos: $ php -r 'echo date(r,NULL),\n;' Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 -0600 (Personally, I would have thought Thursday should be NULL, but that's just me. And Thursday.) Actually, It *is* Thursday if you use UTC: $ TZ=UTC php -r 'echo date(r,NULL),\n;' Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + :P Perfect example of Tedd's last comment about being proven wrong (even though TECHNICALLY it isn't) Good job :) To all: Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take. The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + -- and that was a Thursday. The second before (i.e., 31 December, 1969 23:59:59:59 + ) was null, which was Wednesday. Now one might argue that everything before was null and I could accept that. But here's my code and reasoning, please follow: $string = null; $seconds = strtotime($string);// change string into seconds date = getdate($seconds);// change seconds into a date $computedDate = $date['mday'] . ' ' . $date['month'] . ', ' . $date ['year'] . ' : ' .$date['weekday']; echo($computedDate);// show date Thus, null is Wednesday. Now, why is this wrong? Cheers, tedd _ t...@sperling.com http://sperling.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php That's just it -- it's not wrong -- it's just local -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] socket_recv
I'm playing around with web sockets and have found a couple of simple servers written in PHP. They both appear to perform the initial handshake with a client but then just give up because socket_recv reports that there is no data. I'm confused by this as, the handshake being complete, I wouldn't expect there to be any data if the client hasn't sent any. Is there a way to wait with timeout on data showing up at a socket? -- Cheers -- Tim -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] socket_recv
On Nov 17, 2011, at 14:03, Tim Streater t...@clothears.org.uk wrote: I'm playing around with web sockets and have found a couple of simple servers written in PHP. They both appear to perform the initial handshake with a client but then just give up because socket_recv reports that there is no data. I'm confused by this as, the handshake being complete, I wouldn't expect there to be any data if the client hasn't sent any. Is there a way to wait with timeout on data showing up at a socket? -- Cheers -- Tim -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php Any indication if the socket is in blocking mode or not? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Sniping on the List
On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Stuart Dallas wrote: The epoch specifies the exact time that 0 represents. It makes no claims as far as that being the start of anything... defined as the number of seconds elapsed since midnight Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) of Thursday, January 1, 1970 (Unix times are defined, but negative, before that date) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time] Good reference to support your point, but strtotime() doesn't qork that way. In addition, the statement does not address where the fractions of a second were that occurred before the completion of the first second, clearly those fractions occurred in 1970. For example, if you push '-1' though strtotime(-1), you'll get Wednesday only one day a week -- whereas 'null' works every time. Technically I see that as a bug. I believe strtotime(null) should return null, but due to the way type inference works, null is interpreted as 0. The point here being that you're not getting the time at null, you're getting the time at 0. Nope, zero time is absolutely January 1, 1970 00:00:00 -- which was a Thursday. If you pass zero through strtotime(), it reports December 1969 and I claim that to be a bug. Realize that seconds, minutes, and hours go from 0-59, not 1 to 60. Any fractions of a second before zero was 59.999... and such was indeed part of the day/month/year before. In addition, passing -1 through strtotime() simply returns today, whereas 'null' returns a date prior to the start of everything and that makes more logical sense to me. My point stands: null == Wednesday. :-) It may stand, but it's standing on foundations of null space :) Been there many times. :-) Cheers, tedd _ t...@sperling.com http://sperling.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Sniping on the List
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011, Tedd Sperling wrote: On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Stuart Dallas wrote: The epoch specifies the exact time that 0 represents. It makes no claims as far as that being the start of anything... defined as the number of seconds elapsed since midnight Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) of Thursday, January 1, 1970 (Unix times are defined, but negative, before that date) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time] Good reference to support your point, but strtotime() doesn't qork that way. Yes it does. $ php -r 'echo strtotime (31 Dec 1969 23:59 +);' -60 For example, if you push '-1' though strtotime(-1), you'll get Wednesday only one day a week -- whereas 'null' works every time. Technically I see that as a bug. I believe strtotime(null) should return null, but due to the way type inference works, null is interpreted as 0. The point here being that you're not getting the time at null, you're getting the time at 0. Nope, zero time is absolutely January 1, 1970 00:00:00 -- which was a Thursday. If you pass zero through strtotime(), it reports December 1969 and I claim that to be a bug. Not here it doesn't. $ php -r 'echo date (r, strtotime (zero));' Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + But it might for you (see below). In addition, passing -1 through strtotime() simply returns today, Here it returns a time an hour later than now. $ date -R; php -r 'echo date (r, strtotime (-1));' Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:41:06 + Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:41:07 + whereas 'null' returns a date prior to the start of everything and that makes more logical sense to me. but here we hit the crux of the problem. 'strtotime(null)' isn't returning a null timestamp, it's simply returning the value for an inability to convert the string null to a timestamp. Of course, now that I try to reproduce the null == Wednesday result, I find that I can't. Everything comes up as Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + which probably invalidates much of what I've written above. Maybe I'm not running a new enough PHP (latest I have access to is 5.3.3). But if this is the case, this suggests this behaviour changed relatively recently. Anyway, as I was going to say, the correct way to find out what null is is to do something like: echo date (r, null); But this thread has gone through so many twists now that I can't remember if this is where we began or not. Geoff. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Sniping on the List
What if we were to throw in quantum duality in here? Null and !Null at the same time Please no, our company is trying to outsource to India and they're constantly trying to shove things through narrow slits and the effect has been costly. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Sniping on the List
Consider this -- do you think the second before the Big Bang was negative or null? I don't know. There's no point concerning ourselves with unanswerable questions. The question itself is a logical absurdity since there was no time prior to the Big Bang. The advent of time began when the dimention we perceive as the passage of time froze out of folded reality during the expansion phases's symmertry breaking period, there is not only no answer to what happened before, even suggesting there *was* a before is not possible. It's another nail in the coffin of deity constructors. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Sniping on the List
On 17 Nov 2011, at 23:24, Fredric L. Rice wrote: Consider this -- do you think the second before the Big Bang was negative or null? I don't know. There's no point concerning ourselves with unanswerable questions. The question itself is a logical absurdity since there was no time prior to the Big Bang. The advent of time began when the dimention we perceive as the passage of time froze out of folded reality during the expansion phases's symmertry breaking period, there is not only no answer to what happened before, even suggesting there *was* a before is not possible. Therefore suggesting that time did not exist before is as daft as suggesting that the edges of the universe are being pulled away from us by a herd of randy sloths. The big bang theory is based on an analysis of the effects we can observe in the here and now, which is nowhere near proof that it's actually what happened. Especially not when you consider that the only thing I (or you) actually know is that I (or you) exist in some form, and everything else is a guess based on incredibly flimsy evidence! It's another nail in the coffin of deity constructors. Not even slightly. But none of this has anything even vaguely related to PHP. -Stuart -- Stuart Dallas 3ft9 Ltd http://3ft9.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Sniping on the List
It's another nail in the coffin of deity constructors.
-
And just as this thread was getting boringly OT! ;-{)]
George Langley
Interactive Developer
www.georgelangley.ca
Re: [PHP] Sniping on the List
On 17 Nov 2011, at 20:17, Tedd Sperling wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Stuart Dallas wrote:
The epoch specifies the exact time that 0 represents. It makes no claims as
far as that being the start of anything...
defined as the number of seconds elapsed since midnight Coordinated
Universal Time (UTC) of Thursday, January 1, 1970 (Unix times are defined,
but negative, before that date) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time]
Good reference to support your point, but strtotime() doesn't qork that way.
In addition, the statement does not address where the fractions of a second
were that occurred before the completion of the first second, clearly those
fractions occurred in 1970.
It certainly does address that. The definition the number of seconds elapsed
says nothing about whole seconds, so I'd venture that fractions of a second are
still covered.
For example, if you push '-1' though strtotime(-1), you'll get Wednesday
only one day a week -- whereas 'null' works every time.
Technically I see that as a bug. I believe strtotime(null) should return
null, but due to the way type inference works, null is interpreted as 0. The
point here being that you're not getting the time at null, you're getting
the time at 0.
Nope, zero time is absolutely January 1, 1970 00:00:00 -- which was a
Thursday. If you pass zero through strtotime(), it reports December 1969
and I claim that to be a bug. Realize that seconds, minutes, and hours go
from 0-59, not 1 to 60. Any fractions of a second before zero was 59.999...
and such was indeed part of the day/month/year before.
That has nothing to do with seconds running from 0 to 59 rather than 1 to 60,
it has to do with your timezone. When you ask PHP to display a formatted date
with a timestamp of 0 you're actually getting the time at (unix timestamp 0 +
(3600 * your timezone offset in hours)). Since you're in a timezone that's
behind UTC you get the previous day.
What would you expect 0 as the specification of either an absolute or
relative time string to represent? Now, or the unix timestamp 0? Me, I'd call
it an invalid argument, and PHP 5.3 happens to agree with me...
$ php -r var_dump(strtotime(0));
bool(false)
It does that whether the 0 is passed as a string or a number. Seems right to me.
In addition, passing -1 through strtotime() simply returns today, whereas
'null' returns a date prior to the start of everything and that makes more
logical sense to me.
Not on my machine (PHP 5.3). Passing -1 does what I would expect: it takes 1
second off the current timestamp...
$ php -r echo date('r', strtotime(-1));
Fri, 18 Nov 2011 01:40:53 +
And passing null equally does the right thing, which is to return an error...
$ php -r var_dump(strtotime(null));
bool(false)
Passing -1 does what I would expect: it takes 1 second off the current
timestamp...
Geoff is quite right to point out that strtotime is not the best way to test
whether null is Wednesday, date is a better choice. Let's see what we get on
5.3. As expected, 0 == the epoch...
$ php -r date_default_timezone_set('UTC'); echo date('r', 0);
Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +
And -1 == 1 second before the epoch...
$ php -r date_default_timezone_set('UTC'); echo date('r', -1);
Wed, 31 Dec 1969 23:59:59 +
And null...
$ php -r date_default_timezone_set('UTC'); echo date('r', null);
Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +
So null is (well, was) a Thursday in UTC. It was a Wednesday on the west coast
of the US...
$ php -r date_default_timezone_set('America/Los_Angeles'); echo date('r',
null);
Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 -0800
...but I'm not in the US and it's not BST!
Since it's now Friday where I am, time for a quick plug of the app I've been
involved with for a few years now, and which finally had a public launch this
week: http://datasift.com/. Lovely.
TTFN :)
-Stuart
--
Stuart Dallas
3ft9 Ltd
http://3ft9.com/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Sniping on the List
On 11-11-17 06:24 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote: Consider this -- do you think the second before the Big Bang was negative or null? I don't know. There's no point concerning ourselves with unanswerable questions. The question itself is a logical absurdity since there was no time prior to the Big Bang. The advent of time began when the dimention we perceive as the passage of time froze out of folded reality during the expansion phases's symmertry breaking period, there is not only no answer to what happened before, even suggesting there *was* a before is not possible. It's another nail in the coffin of deity constructors. By you're reasoning since I did not exist before 1974 then time itself could not possibly have existed before then either since I was not in existence to perceive it. That's as ludicrous as suggesting time did not exist before the big bang (presuming this model is correct). Also, them's some fancy shmancy words you're slinging about up there, but without a proof it's just farts in the wind :) No more valid than a theory of creation or the big ass spaghetti thingy majingy dude. Folded shmeality and phases of whatsyamacallit may well be true, but provability of the non-existence of time before the big bang theory is not provable by this model. However, what is valid is to take a point of reference in time and infer a period before it. Thus before the big bang is perfectly valid whether we could perceive it or not. Cheers, Rob. -- E-Mail Disclaimer: Information contained in this message and any attached documents is considered confidential and legally protected. This message is intended solely for the addressee(s). Disclosure, copying, and distribution are prohibited unless authorized. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Sniping on the List
On 11-11-18 12:40 AM, Robert Cummings wrote: On 11-11-17 06:24 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote: Consider this -- do you think the second before the Big Bang was negative or null? I don't know. There's no point concerning ourselves with unanswerable questions. The question itself is a logical absurdity since there was no time prior to the Big Bang. The advent of time began when the dimention we perceive as the passage of time froze out of folded reality during the expansion phases's symmertry breaking period, there is not only no answer to what happened before, even suggesting there *was* a before is not possible. It's another nail in the coffin of deity constructors. By you're reasoning since I did not exist before 1974 then time itself could not possibly have existed before then either since I was not in existence to perceive it. That's as ludicrous as suggesting time did not exist before the big bang (presuming this model is correct). Also, them's some fancy shmancy words you're slinging about up there, but without a proof it's just farts in the wind :) No more valid than a theory of creation or the big ass spaghetti thingy majingy dude. Folded shmeality and phases of whatsyamacallit may well be true, but provability of the non-existence of time before the big bang theory is not provable by this model. However, what is valid is to take a point of reference in time and infer a period before it. Thus before the big bang is perfectly valid whether we could perceive it or not. The following pretty much sums up the entire argument: http://shorl.com/tebrakefesahe Cheers, Rob. -- E-Mail Disclaimer: Information contained in this message and any attached documents is considered confidential and legally protected. This message is intended solely for the addressee(s). Disclosure, copying, and distribution are prohibited unless authorized. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
