[PHP-DOC] Notes Status, 7950 total

2002-11-28 Thread phpdoc
Following are the top 20 pages of the manual, sorted by the number
of user notes contributed. These sections could use a polish, those
notes represent 12.8% of the 7950 total user notes.

Notes  |  Page
---+-
  109  | http://php.net/manual/en/function.setcookie.php
   76  | http://php.net/manual/en/function.preg-replace.php
   63  | http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop.php
   54  | http://php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php
   53  | http://php.net/manual/en/ref.imap.php
   52  | http://php.net/manual/en/ref.pdf.php
   52  | http://php.net/manual/en/ref.session.php
   50  | http://php.net/manual/en/function.include.php
   49  | http://php.net/manual/en/features.file-upload.php
   48  | http://php.net/manual/en/function.date.php
   48  | http://php.net/manual/en/function.header.php
   47  | http://php.net/manual/en/function.exec.php
   47  | http://php.net/manual/en/ref.datetime.php
   44  | http://php.net/manual/en/function.mail.php
   40  | http://php.net/manual/en/function.fopen.php
   39  | http://php.net/manual/en/ref.domxml.php
   38  | http://php.net/manual/en/ref.oci8.php
   38  | http://php.net/manual/en/language.variables.predefined.php
   37  | http://php.net/manual/en/function.mssql-connect.php
   37  | http://php.net/manual/en/ref.exec.php


-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




[PHP-DOC] Modules/Extensions not in 4.3

2002-11-28 Thread Friedhelm Betz
Hi,

maybe noticed I am working on incorporating configure-options in the
Reference-Part of the manual. To avoid wasting my time, I want to
exclude those modules/extensions no longer available.

Any pointer to an overview, or should I search php-dev?

Thanks

Friedhelm


-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




[PHP-DOC] Note on size for pdf_setfont()?

2002-11-28 Thread Jome
While playing around with the PDF functions I checked the manual on pdf_setfont() to 
see if the format of the size was pixels or points or something else. Unfortunately it 
didn't say and I thought about adding a note but I have two things I'd like to get 
straighten out first:

1) Am I, considering that I do have access to the phpdoc module, supposed to add that 
sort of information directly to the manual or should I, like I first thought, post a 
note?

2) It could be just me wondering about size, pretty much everything in the PDF lib 
seems to be points anyways. Is notes/additions just wanted when it's absolutely 
neccesary?


  Jome


--
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




Re: [PHP-DOC] Note on size for pdf_setfont()?

2002-11-28 Thread Derick Rethans
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Jome wrote:

> While playing around with the PDF functions I checked the manual on pdf_setfont() to 
>see if the format of the size was pixels or points or something else. Unfortunately 
>it didn't say and I thought about adding a note but I have two things I'd like to get 
>straighten out first:
> 
> 1) Am I, considering that I do have access to the phpdoc module, supposed to add 
>that sort of information directly to the manual or should I, like I first thought, 
>post a note?
> 
> 2) It could be just me wondering about size, pretty much everything in the PDF lib 
>seems to be points anyways. Is notes/additions just wanted when it's absolutely 
>neccesary?

Notes are only used for users, if you're sure that you document 
something right, do it in phpdoc right away.

Derick

-- 

-
 Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl/ 
 PHP Magazine - PHP Magazine for Professionals   http://php-mag.net/
-


-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




Re: [PHP-DOC] Modules/Extensions not in 4.3

2002-11-28 Thread Philip Olson

This raises up a good point.  PEAR is starting to
take shape and more and more extensions are moving
into PEAR/PECL.  What do we do?  PECL extensions are 
documented in the PEAR manual, not here.

Since most of these extension moves are so recent,
(4.3.0), we should probably continue to document them 
until they are moved into the PEAR manual.  I think
you should do PECL ones as well as it will really
help the peardoc team and provide a good framework.  
Soon after they are moved into the PEAR manual then 
dummy/filler pages can simply refer to them.  In fact, 
how about creating filler pages for all PECL extensions?

Moved extensions are mentioned in NEWS:
  http://www.php.net/php4news

One thing to keep in mind is the PEAR manual uses
our old method of one xml file per extension as
opposed to reference.xml, config.xml, etc. but
the peardoc team can merge them or ideally have them
split up too.

Regards,
Philip

p.s. Once many of these are moved out, maybe we can
 create (full) pdf's again! :)



On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Friedhelm Betz wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> maybe noticed I am working on incorporating configure-options in the
> Reference-Part of the manual. To avoid wasting my time, I want to
> exclude those modules/extensions no longer available.
> 
> Any pointer to an overview, or should I search php-dev?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Friedhelm
> 
> 
> -- 
> PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> 



-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




[PHP-DOC] #8353 [Opn]: foreach modify array pointer

2002-11-28 Thread philip
 ID:  8353
 Updated by:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reported By: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Status:  Open
-Bug Type:Arrays related
+Bug Type:Documentation problem
 PHP Version: 4.4.0-dev
-Assigned To: 
+Assigned To: philip
 New Comment:

The foreach() page will be updated and made more clear on this
behavior.  Regarding the pointer, foreach() indeed behaves like
while/each() (except for the initial reset) and moves the pointer past
the end.  So although it provides a copy to work with it still affects
the original arrays pointer!


Previous Comments:


[2002-11-27 10:32:33] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

As I've been taught, foreach doesn't affect the pointer as it merely
works on a copy.  Also, the following note exists in the foreach()
entry of the manual and has for over two years:

Note:  Also note that foreach operates on a copy of the specified
array, not the array itself, therefore the array pointer is not
modified as with the each()  construct and changes to the array element
returned are not reflected in the original array. 

That was added by Sterling here:

http://cvs.php.net/diff.php/phpdoc/en/language/control-structures.xml?login=2&r1=1.9&r2=1.10&ty=h


Everyone assumes foreach works on a copy and only a copy.  IMHO each()
isn't a fair comparison because it doesn't work on a copy.



[2002-11-24 23:10:40] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

IMO this is not a bug. Foreach works virtually like while + each
combination, with a few exceptions such as not requiring a reset()
prior to execution since it does not care about the current position in
the array.
As far as current(), next() and simular are concerned,
while (each($arr)); == foreach ($arr as $v);, once the loops are
complete current() will return FALSE. This IMO is a consistent
behaviour and is definately not a bug. I believe this is merely a
documentation issue.



[2002-11-21 15:21:34] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

foreach essentially REMOVES the array pointer alltogether on the
original array.

$arr = array('a','b'); foreach ($arr as $v); var_dump( current($arr)
);
$arr = array('a','b'); foreach ($arr as $v); reset($arr); var_dump(
current($arr) );

Results:
bool(false)
string(1) "a"

Using key() instead of current() results in NULL instead of false. 
Where did the pointer go?

Conclusion:
Either foreach() has a feature that removes the array pointer from the
original array or it's a bug.  If it's seen as a feature please explain
why so it can be documented.



[2001-03-09 21:32:57] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

no feedback.




[2001-01-05 22:52:10] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I get 121 for both cases. Please try the latest snapshot from
http://snaps.php.net/

--Jani



The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/8353

-- 
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/?id=8353&edit=1


-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




[PHP-DOC] file handeling

2002-11-28 Thread Jeff
Quick one, how do i read a file for a key word, say "TEXt", and the delete
the rest of the remaining file?



-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




Re: [PHP-DOC] file handeling

2002-11-28 Thread Philip Olson

See:
  http://www.php.net/support

This list is for documenting the manual, not
general support questions.

Regards,
Philip


On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Jeff wrote:

> Quick one, how do i read a file for a key word, say "TEXt", and the delete
> the rest of the remaining file?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> 


-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




[PHP-DOC] Re: Fw: Problems with English doc. php_manual_en.chm

2002-11-28 Thread Derick Rethans
Hi,

I am just uploading a new one; and I just wrote a checker so that it 
never uploads broken CHMs anymore.

thanks for the heads up.

Derick


On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Gabor Hojtsy wrote:

> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 9:13 AM
> Subject: Problems with English doc. php_manual_en.chm
> 
> 
> > Hello!
> > 
> > The size of php_manual_en.chm
> > (http://www.php.net/distributions/manual/php_manual_en.chm) is 37 Kb
> > 
> > This is not right. I think. :)
> > 
> > 
> > -
> > Andrey S Pavlov
> > Novosoft ViaNet Department
> > Custom software development and web design since 1992
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For more visit http://www.novosoft-us.com/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

-- 

-
 Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl/ 
 JDI Media Solutions http://www.jdimedia.nl/
 PHP Magazine - PHP Magazine for Professionals   http://php-mag.net/
-


-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




[PHP-DOC] #20610 [Bgs->Opn]: sendmail_path does work in Windows too, not only in Unix

2002-11-28 Thread dmitry
 ID:   20610
 User updated by:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Summary:  mail() does not work on Windows 95, but does work on
   Win2000
 Reported By:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Status:   Bogus
+Status:   Open
-Bug Type: Mail related
+Bug Type: Documentation problem
 Operating System: Windows 95
 PHP Version:  4.3.0RC1
 New Comment:

Everything works in Win95 too if I use BACKSLASHES instead of strait
slashes:

; this is correct in Windows!
sendmail_path = \usr\sbin\sendmail -t -i 

I also watched through the PHP sources -
src\php-4.2.3\ext\standard\mail.c - to check if sendmail_path could
work in Windows. It can. Always. 

I think you may need to correct php.ini comments about sendmail_path in
Windows.


Previous Comments:


[2002-11-24 12:51:22] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Here in excert from the php.ini file:
; For Win32 only.
SMTP = localhost

; For Win32 only.
sendmail_from = [EMAIL PROTECTED]

; For Unix only.  You may supply arguments as well (default: "sendmail
-t -i").
;sendmail_path =



[2002-11-24 12:39:01] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

It's a very strange thing, because on Win2000 all works correctly.
What's the difference between Win95 and Win2000 in the stage of opening
process streams?.. You see that popen() works in both OSes.

By the way, I didn't find in the documentation direct (!) instruction,
that sendmail_path does not work on Windows. Maybe it's a documentation
problem?..



[2002-11-24 12:29:55] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sorry, but your problem does not imply a bug in PHP itself.  For a
list of more appropriate places to ask for help using PHP, please
visit http://www.php.net/support.php as this bug system is not the
appropriate forum for asking support questions. 

Thank you for your interest in PHP.

On windows PHP connects directly to the SMTP specified via the SMTP ini
setting, the sendmail_path is only used on UNIX based systems.



[2002-11-24 10:38:43] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Mail() function does not work on Win95. Seems to me it simply doesn't
call sendmail stub. 

PHP.ini:
sendmail_path = z:/usr/sbin/sendmail -t -i

test.php:


z:/usr/sbin/sendmail.exe is a debug stub. It reads STDIN and put data
to the file (tested OK on Win2000 & Win95 from command line).

On Win2000 all works correctly, promlems are only on Windows 95.




-- 
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/?id=20610&edit=1


-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




[PHP-DOC] Re: Fw: Problems with English doc. php_manual_en.chm

2002-11-28 Thread Gabor Hojtsy
> I am just uploading a new one; and I just wrote a checker so that it 
> never uploads broken CHMs anymore.

Quite happy to hear this ;))

Goba



-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




[PHP-DOC] cvs: phpdoc /en/language functions.xml

2002-11-28 Thread Sara Golemon
pollita Thu Nov 28 15:43:00 2002 EDT

  Modified files:  
/phpdoc/en/language functions.xml 
  Log:
  Documentation Bug #13568.  Added qualification for conditional function declarations.
  
  
Index: phpdoc/en/language/functions.xml
diff -u phpdoc/en/language/functions.xml:1.28 phpdoc/en/language/functions.xml:1.29
--- phpdoc/en/language/functions.xml:1.28   Mon Jul  8 07:40:02 2002
+++ phpdoc/en/language/functions.xmlThu Nov 28 15:43:00 2002
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 
-
+
  
   Functions
 
@@ -37,8 +37,78 @@


 In PHP 3, functions must be defined before they are referenced. No
-such requirement exists in PHP 4.
+such requirement exists in PHP 4. Except when
+a function is conditionally defined such as shown in the two examples
+below.

+   
+When a function is defined in a conditional manner such as the two
+examples shown.  Its definition must be processed prior
+to being called.
+
+ Conditional functions
+ 
+
+ 
+
+
+ Functions within functions
+ 
+
+ 
+
+   

 PHP does not support function overloading, nor is it possible to
 undefine or redefine previously-declared functions.



-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




[PHP-DOC] #13568 [Opn->Csd]: PHP3 semantics have been retained for nested functions

2002-11-28 Thread pollita
 ID:   13568
 Updated by:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reported By:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Status:   Open
+Status:   Closed
 Bug Type: Documentation problem
 Operating System: *
 PHP Version:  4.10
 New Comment:

Documentation at http://www.php.net/manual/en/functions.php updted. 
"Why conditional functions don't immediately exist."


Previous Comments:


[2002-09-09 08:14:10] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

the new semantics that allows calling functions prior to their
definition only works for functions defined in a global scope

as soon as a function definition is within a conditional
block or nested within another function the new function
cannot be created at parse time as it is not known yet
wether the condition will be met or the surrounding 
function ever called, so these functions are created at
runtime instead when execution reaches this part of the code

so it is rather obvious that you can't call such a function ahead of
it's definition

well, maybe not *that* obvious, reclassified as documentation problem
...



[2001-12-14 14:01:10] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Parhaps,  ZE2  should depreciate this syntax.

I really want BNF for PHP.




[2001-10-05 14:56:31] [EMAIL PROTECTED]


container ();

a script to reproduce the error quickly.

function container () {

  function nested_php3 () {
 echo "this will be output";
  }

  nested_php3 ();

  nested_php4 ();
 
  function nested_php4 () {
  echo "this won't be output";
  }
}




-- 
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/?id=13568&edit=1


-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




[PHP-DOC] Re: [PEAR-DOC] Re: [PHP-DOC] Modules/Extensions not in 4.3

2002-11-28 Thread Arnaud Limbourg
The peardoc format will be phased out for peardoc2 which uses several files, that is 
one per function, one for constants, etc.

It makes sense to document PECL in the pear manual since PECL is in pear.

Arnaud.

> This raises up a good point.  PEAR is starting to
> take shape and more and more extensions are moving
> into PEAR/PECL.  What do we do?  PECL extensions are 
> documented in the PEAR manual, not here.
> 
> Since most of these extension moves are so recent,
> (4.3.0), we should probably continue to document them 
> until they are moved into the PEAR manual.  I think
> you should do PECL ones as well as it will really
> help the peardoc team and provide a good framework.  
> Soon after they are moved into the PEAR manual then 
> dummy/filler pages can simply refer to them.  In fact, 
> how about creating filler pages for all PECL extensions?
> 
> Moved extensions are mentioned in NEWS:
>   http://www.php.net/php4news
> 
> One thing to keep in mind is the PEAR manual uses
> our old method of one xml file per extension as
> opposed to reference.xml, config.xml, etc. but
> the peardoc team can merge them or ideally have them
> split up too.
> 
> Regards,
> Philip
> 
> p.s. Once many of these are moved out, maybe we can
>  create (full) pdf's again! :)
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Friedhelm Betz wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > maybe noticed I am working on incorporating configure-options in the
> > Reference-Part of the manual. To avoid wasting my time, I want to
> > exclude those modules/extensions no longer available.
> > 
> > Any pointer to an overview, or should I search php-dev?
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Friedhelm
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PEAR Documentation List Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> 

-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: [PEAR-DOC] Re: [PHP-DOC] Modules/Extensions not in4.3

2002-11-28 Thread Gabor Hojtsy
> The peardoc format will be phased out for peardoc2 which
> uses several files, that is one per function, one for constants, etc.
> 
> It makes sense to document PECL in the pear manual since PECL is in pear.

Well, actually this what I wanted to hear :) I also think that moving
PECL module's manuals to PECL is the way to go. Those extensions are
mostly rarely used... We can make up a list in the manual about moved
extensions and some text about why this happened / happens...

Goba



-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




[PHP-DOC] Re: [PEAR-DOC] Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: [PEAR-DOC] Re: [PHP-DOC] Modules/Extensions not in 4.3

2002-11-28 Thread Arnaud Limbourg
> Well, actually this what I wanted to hear :) I also think that moving
> PECL module's manuals to PECL is the way to go. Those extensions are
> mostly rarely used... We can make up a list in the manual about moved
> extensions and some text about why this happened / happens...

I'm just one voice among many ;)))

BTW, some extensions as APD are already documented in the pear manual, in old peardoc 
though, they will be moved to peardoc2 though.

Arnaud.

-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: [PEAR-DOC] Re: [PHP-DOC] Modules/Extensions notin 4.3

2002-11-28 Thread Philip Olson

I'm looking in: peardoc/peardoc2/en/pecl/ right now and each
extension has just one file.  In regards to phpdoc, it
would look like:

  peardoc/peardoc2/en/pecl/{extensionname}/*.xml

Currently it's just:

  peardoc/peardoc2/en/pecl/{extensionname}.xml

We all agree they should move but the question is when
and how.  Regarding that list Goba, just as long as for
example:

  php.net/cybercash

Redirects to some useful information on the matter life will
be good for everyone.  And it will remain BC :)

Regards,
Philip


On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Gabor Hojtsy wrote:

> > The peardoc format will be phased out for peardoc2 which
> > uses several files, that is one per function, one for constants, etc.
> > 
> > It makes sense to document PECL in the pear manual since PECL is in pear.
> 
> Well, actually this what I wanted to hear :) I also think that moving
> PECL module's manuals to PECL is the way to go. Those extensions are
> mostly rarely used... We can make up a list in the manual about moved
> extensions and some text about why this happened / happens...
> 
> Goba
> 
> 


-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




[PHP-DOC] Re: [PEAR-DOC] Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: [PEAR-DOC] Re: [PHP-DOC] Modules/Extensions not in 4.3

2002-11-28 Thread Arnaud Limbourg
Mm, indeed there is just one fine.

I do not know if this is intended though as pear packages are split into several 
files. I'm ccing Alexander Merz, who did the peardoc2 stuff, just in case.

As for the move there is nothing planned at the moment, afaik.

My opinion (and that's just me) is that new documentation should be be done into 
peardoc2 directly and that effort has to be made to move peardoc to peardoc2 thus 
phasing out peardoc.
For PECL we first have to know if the rule is one-file-per-package.

Arnaud.
 
> I'm looking in: peardoc/peardoc2/en/pecl/ right now and each
> extension has just one file.  In regards to phpdoc, it
> would look like:
> 
>   peardoc/peardoc2/en/pecl/{extensionname}/*.xml
> 
> Currently it's just:
> 
>   peardoc/peardoc2/en/pecl/{extensionname}.xml
> 
> We all agree they should move but the question is when
> and how.  Regarding that list Goba, just as long as for
> example:
> 
>   php.net/cybercash
> 
> Redirects to some useful information on the matter life will
> be good for everyone.  And it will remain BC :)
> 
> Regards,
> Philip
> 
> 
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
> 
> > > The peardoc format will be phased out for peardoc2 which
> > > uses several files, that is one per function, one for constants, etc.
> > > 
> > > It makes sense to document PECL in the pear manual since PECL is in pear.
> > 
> > Well, actually this what I wanted to hear :) I also think that moving
> > PECL module's manuals to PECL is the way to go. Those extensions are
> > mostly rarely used... We can make up a list in the manual about moved
> > extensions and some text about why this happened / happens...
> > 
> > Goba
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PEAR Documentation List Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> 

-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




Re: [PHP-DOC] Modules/Extensions not in 4.3

2002-11-28 Thread Philip Olson

> As for the move there is nothing planned at the moment, afaik.

Just to clarify just in case, I was referring to the 
move from phpdoc to peardoc and not peardoc/peardoc 
to peardoc/peardoc2.

Philip




-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




[PHP-DOC] #15110 [Opn]: Sessions are not saved unless the session contains data

2002-11-28 Thread john
 ID:   15110
 Updated by:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reported By:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Status:   Open
 Bug Type: Documentation problem
 Operating System: Linux
 PHP Version:  4.1.1
 Assigned To:  john
 New Comment:

I'm going to update the docs to reflect this behavior.



Previous Comments:


[2002-08-23 08:03:44] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Update summary



[2002-02-08 07:06:25] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

If you have your own save handler functions, you can do what ever you
want with you functiions. 

For example, if session is new (no record in your DB when read is
called), just insert it when close is called.





[2002-02-08 05:48:50] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I share a server with a couple of other sites using php and I'm the
only one using mysql to store sessions. By storing all my sessions in a
table, both empty and not, I get a measure of how many sessions my site
has started. This gives me a rough idea of how many vistors I have at a
specfic time, just by counting the rows in the table. Further on, I
differ logged in users by counting those who have the a flag
registered. This gives me fast and rough stats of how many users that
are visisting the site and how many of them who are logged in.
Now, when I get the empty sessions all mixed up with the other sites ut
gets way too rough. I have thought of a couple of possible solutions
with by always registering a variable to session but it makes it more
ineffcient than before.

I think you get the picture. Maybe you have a simple soloution, if so
please share =). I've gotta go now. Have a nice weekend.



[2002-02-08 02:19:03] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

What is the big problem here exactly? I fail to understand why this is
important for you.

Derick



[2002-02-07 05:40:15] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Ah well, since I'm the only one complaining I guess no one will do
anything about it. For me it's back to 4.0 because I really used the
previous way it worked. =/

/Fabbe



The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/15110

-- 
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/?id=15110&edit=1


-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




[PHP-DOC] #17386 [Opn]: Associativity of assignment operators listed wrongly

2002-11-28 Thread john
 ID:  17386
 Updated by:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reported By: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Status:  Open
 Bug Type:Documentation problem
 PHP Version: 4.1.2
 Assigned To: john
 New Comment:

I'll make the change for the associtivity from left to right, but I
don't know if I should just make a note of the example regarding
precedence rules. 

Anyone know if its intended behavior, or should this have thrown a
parse error?

John


Previous Comments:


[2002-05-23 09:34:04] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

The operators page at /manual/en/language.operators.php lists the the
assignment operators (=, +=, etc.) as being left associative, but they
must logically be right associative. Left associativity would mean that
this:

$a = $b = 0;

was interpreted as:

($a = $b) =0;

which is clearly nonsensical.  Indeed a quick test shows that:

$d = $c += $a += $b += 4;

is interpreted as:

$d = ($c += ($a += ($b += 4)));

which looks like right associativity to me!

(Actually, a little further testing suggests that the assignment
operators need some special annotations, as they don't appear to
strictly obey their stated precedence level.  For example, the
statement:

$x = $z + $y = 543;

if interpreted strictly according to the precedence rules should be
equivalent to:

$x = ($z + $y) = 543;

which would be a parse error, but in fact is interpreted as:

$x = $z + ($y = 543);

which may be the "obvious" intention, but had me WTF-ing for a while!!)




-- 
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/?id=17386&edit=1


-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




[PHP-DOC] Re: [PEAR-DOC] Re: [PHP-DOC] Modules/Extensions not in 4.3

2002-11-28 Thread Arnaud Limbourg
Oh, I got it wrong then ;)

> Just to clarify just in case, I was referring to the 
> move from phpdoc to peardoc and not peardoc/peardoc 
> to peardoc/peardoc2.

-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php




[PHP-DOC] #20694 [Opn]: html not properly going to browser

2002-11-28 Thread derick
 ID:   20694
 Updated by:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reported By:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Status:   Open
-Bug Type: IIS related
+Bug Type: Documentation problem
 Operating System: Windows 2000 Server
 PHP Version:  4.3.0RC2
 New Comment:

okay, we make it a documentation problem then.

Derick


Previous Comments:


[2002-11-29 01:34:04] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

changing to c:\php\php-cgi.exe %s %s works fine

works fine with Stable (4.3.x-dev)
http://snaps.php.net/win32/php4-win32-STABLE-
200211290130.zip
(I was just trying to see if it was better when i got your 
suggestion)

as well as
4.3.0RC2 as i originally had it.

I changed it back to c:\php\php.exe %s %s and the error 
recurs exactly as before so this is definitely the issue.

I think i'll leave it running 4.3.0RC2 with the correct IIS 
setup and see if there any more issues. From the pages i've 
looked at so far all the third-party projects as well as my 
stuff seem to be working fine.

Would be nice to have this put in the install.txt file that 
php.exe is no longer used directly by IIS, that php-cgi.exe 
is now being used in this version and should be changed. At 
least it would cut down on the number of bug reports since 
this is a fundamental difference that might not be noticed 
with the php.exe still being there. (It does still sort of 
work)



[2002-11-29 00:52:12] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

In PHP 4.3.0 cgi binary is called php-cgi.exe. Could you try using that
one and see if it fixes your problem?



[2002-11-28 17:44:54] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

CGI
c:\php\php.exe %s %s
is the command line in the application mappings

I can install it again if you want me to try something
(i just swap out contents of the php folder, iis isn't 
changed)



[2002-11-28 11:48:33] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

cgi

php.exe specifically



[2002-11-28 07:30:54] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Which SAPI are you using, cgi os isapi?



The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/20694

-- 
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/?id=20694&edit=1


-- 
PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php