Andrei Zmievski wrote:
On Feb 2, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
The real test however would be random character access, rather then
sequential scans from start to end :-).
How often do you access random characters in a string vs. sequential
scans? Which is the more likely scenari
On Feb 2, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
The real test however would be random character access, rather then
sequential scans from start to end :-).
How often do you access random characters in a string vs. sequential
scans? Which is the more likely scenario in PHP scripts? I th
think of using fastcgi? u can have more user->httpserver concurrent
connection than http->fastcgi. 5-20 php-fastcgi is enough in some
case, with thread disabled, while u can run apache2 mpm worker.
OK, so 10 years into PHP suddenly we need a new way for people to understand
arrays?
I think what we have already is good enough. Speaking as an arts grad who
came into coding late in life and learned C via PHP...
- Steph
- Original Message -
From: "James Crane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Reply below]
On 2/2/06, Christian Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I would kinda like array literals too (and even had a patch for it
> some time ago, don't remember if it was without problems though) the
> core developers think that
> a) one working solution is enough
> b) array() is
So, all I heard as reasons not to introduce the '[]' syntax for
creating arrays is because "'array()' is perfectly fine" and that it
wouldn't make sense to have two syntaxes (compared to other legacy
stuff in PHP). And certainly nobody has an objection to the fact that
developers have to learn that
Cache it where? In the zval or the opcode? What if the string changes?
How do you detect that and invalidate the cached position?
-Andrei
On Feb 2, 2006, at 5:19 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
You could cache the last position (PHP- and Unicode string index) and
start from there. This assumes
Andrei,
You may see a better performance using the [] if you change your test
code to:
for ($x = 0; $x < 1; $x++) {
$i = 0; while (isset($a[$i])) { $c = $a[$i++]; }
}
The real test however would be random character access, rather then
sequential scans from start to end :-).
Ilia
A
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
I am not sure how we can optimize [] to be faster than the iterator
approach. Food for thought?
You could cache the last position (PHP- and Unicode string index) and
start from there. This assumes that most accesses are (more or less)
sequential. If you can step backwar
For yet another comparison, the [] operator test under PHP 4 gives
7.24410 s.
- Andrei
On Feb 2, 2006, at 4:45 PM, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
You probably saw that I have committed initial implementation of
TextIterator. The impetus for this is that direct indexing of Unicode
strings via [] oper
You probably saw that I have committed initial implementation of
TextIterator. The impetus for this is that direct indexing of Unicode
strings via [] operator is slow, very slow, at least currently. The
reason is that [] cannot simply perform random-offset indexing into
UCHar* strings. It needs
Brian Moon wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Rather then terminating Apache request yourself, you can use universal
Apache configuration directives that allow you to restrict memory
utilization of an Apache process.
Hmmm, the ones I looked at seemed to prohibit a process from growing
above a ce
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Rather then terminating Apache request yourself, you can use universal
Apache configuration directives that allow you to restrict memory
utilization of an Apache process.
Hmmm, the ones I looked at seemed to prohibit a process from growing
above a certain size. Can yo
Rather then terminating Apache request yourself, you can use universal
Apache configuration directives that allow you to restrict memory
utilization of an Apache process.
Ilia
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Brian Moon wrote:
I have some questions about the Apache 2 SAPI. We had been using
apache_child_terminate to control memory usage with Apache 1.3. This
function is not available with the Apache 2 SAPI. Is this function just
not offered in the Apache 2 API? If it is offered and there is some
I have some questions about the Apache 2 SAPI. We had been using
apache_child_terminate to control memory usage with Apache 1.3. This
function is not available with the Apache 2 SAPI. Is this function just
not offered in the Apache 2 API? If it is offered and there is some
gotcha or simply
Ilia Alshanetsky schrieb:
> iliaa Thu Feb 2 15:10:04 2006 UTC
>
> Modified files: (Branch: PHP_5_1)
> /php-src/ext/spl spl_directory.c
> Log:
> Only use win32 directory separators on win32 or netware.
c:\home\php\php-5.1\ext\spl\spl_directory.c(1409): error C206
Run-Time Check Failure #3: The variable 'bindport' is being used without
being defined.
Indeed, when the socket/bindto option isn't set, that gets used
uninitialized. I'll apply a fix.
-Sara
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/u
Moshe Doron wrote:
May some of you, will find more interest on the the bellow ticket and the
bug will get his proper treatment (you may explain me why i'm idiot and the
bug is bogus, but please explain yourself).
[1] http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=36197
You seem to hang yourself on the fac
I know that my english is not 'production level' one, but the following
misunderstood all over the bug[1] evolution is may result of low interest
of the good people that wokring hard to close the open bugs.
May some of you, will find more interest on the the bellow ticket and the
bug will get
Helping the danish translation of the PHP Manual, and custom extensions.
Currently it is rather slow and often badly translated.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
21 matches
Mail list logo
