Hi,
The solution (2) - goto only is the winner.
So in case of no serious objections, I'll commit the goto.diff patch in 24
hour.
The last question:
What do you thin about Andi's solution about using jump instead of goto?
It may make sense, because it is not a full analog of C's goto statement.
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi,
The solution (2) - goto only is the winner.
So in case of no serious objections, I'll commit the goto.diff patch in 24
hour.
The last question:
What do you thin about Andi's solution about using jump instead of goto?
I don't really mind...
I am indifferent - goto or jump, but may be others don't.
Thanks. Dmitry.
-Original Message-
From: Derick Rethans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:09 AM
To: Dmitry Stogov
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] GOTO and/or BREAK LABEL
Hi,
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
I am indifferent - goto or jump, but may be others don't.
what about `escape`?
Thanks. Dmitry.
-Original Message-
From: Derick Rethans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:09 AM
To: Dmitry Stogov
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Hi,
sorry for sending second email. Another choice could be `leave`,
which seems better than `escape` (clashes with escaping sequences).
Andrey
Andrey Hristov wrote:
Hi,
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
I am indifferent - goto or jump, but may be others don't.
what about `escape`?
Thanks.
At 1141902889, Andrey Hristov wrote:
sorry for sending second email. Another choice could be `leave`, which
seems better than `escape` (clashes with escaping sequences).
I think `leave` has too many connotations with `break` and similar
commands, and could be misleading.
--
Jon Dowland
Jon Dowland wrote:
At 1141902889, Andrey Hristov wrote:
sorry for sending second email. Another choice could be `leave`, which
seems better than `escape` (clashes with escaping sequences).
I think `leave` has too many connotations with `break` and similar
commands, and could be misleading.
Zeev Suraski schrieb:
we're still heatedly debating on adding new syntactical, core level
features.
Apart from namespaces, I can't think of any other syntactical core
level feature missing that could not be implemented as an extension.
Sara and Marcus have already shown (with the Operator
Good response, but it wasn't even 30 minutes :)
Zeev
At 13:07 09/03/2006, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Zeev Suraski schrieb:
we're still heatedly debating on adding new syntactical, core level
features.
Apart from namespaces, I can't think of any other syntactical core
level feature missing
I might be missing something here, but I thought the people
discussing things on this list are members of the user base. Thus,
they likely propose syntax changes and improvements because they need
them.
I have to say that I don't really get that argument some people bring
forward over
At 10:03 09/03/2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
The last question:
What do you thin about Andi's solution about using jump instead of
goto?
Great! Yet another keyword. PHP keeps surprising the world...
It may make sense, because it is not a full analog of C's goto
statement. It
is a limited goto.
Here goes the first RC of the 5.1.3 release, a whole slew of bugs fixes
and a few minor feature enchantments. Please test this release as
extensively as possible and let us know via bug reports if you come
across any problems. The tarballs are available here:
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi,
The solution (2) - goto only is the winner.
So in case of no serious objections, I'll commit the goto.diff patch in 24
hour.
The last question:
What do you thin about Andi's solution about using jump instead of goto?
It may make sense, because it is not a
Windows binaries are available in a slightly different place:
http://downloads.php.net/edink/php-5.1.3RC1-Win32.zip
Edin
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Here goes the first RC of the 5.1.3 release, a whole slew of bugs fixes
and a few minor feature enchantments. Please test this release as
Greg Beaver wrote:
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi,
The solution (2) - goto only is the winner.
So in case of no serious objections, I'll commit the goto.diff patch in 24
hour.
The last question:
What do you thin about Andi's solution about using jump instead of goto?
It may make sense, because it
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 11:03:48 +0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dmitry Stogov) wrote:
Hi,
The solution (2) - goto only is the winner.
So in case of no serious objections, I'll commit the goto.diff
patch in 24 hour.
The last question:
What do you thin about Andi's solution about using jump instead of
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Bart de Boer wrote:
Even though I like jump, people will most likely be searching for goto
(PHP manual) or goto PHP (Google) when they're trying to find out if PHP has
such a functionality. So, maybe it's better to just call it goto.
PHP will give some kind of warning if
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 11:03:48 +0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dmitry Stogov) wrote:
Hi,
The solution (2) - goto only is the winner.
So in case of no serious objections, I'll commit the goto.diff
patch in 24 hour.
The last question:
What do you thin about Andi's solution about using jump instead
Zeev Suraski wrote:
I'd like to raise a motion to 'Give the Language a Rest'.
+1
Brian Moon
dealnews.com
--
How to go broke saving money.
http://dealnews.com/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
BdBEven though I like jump, people will most likely be searching for
BdBgoto (PHP manual) or goto PHP (Google) when they're trying to
BdBfind out if PHP has such a functionality. So, maybe it's better to
BdBjust call it goto.
For such people we might have a page in the manual saying:
goto:
Apart from namespaces, I can't think of any other syntactical core
level feature missing that could not be implemented as an extension.
Goto can't...
Well, okay fine. It can, but at a significantly greater cost and
complexity. By that token namespaces can be done in an extension too (You
Even though I like jump, people will most likely be searching for goto
(PHP manual) or goto PHP (Google) when they're trying to find out if PHP
has
such a functionality. So, maybe it's better to just call it goto.
Agreed. As the man said this morning, let's Consider our Audience.
Goto is
Sara Golemon schrieb:
The inability to inject tokens and expressions into the lexer and
parser is another limitation on what can be done from extensions in
terms of syntax level features. Yes, I know this is more of a problem
with bison and flex than with the design of ZE, but that doesn't
Sure, after you folks implement named parameters. :)
*ducks and tries to hide*
Jared
On Mar 9, 2006, at 2:57 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I'd like to raise a motion to 'Give the Language a Rest'.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
SFErm, wouldn't those people who need to refer to the manual be exactly the
SFsame people we wanted to protect from goto in the first place? :)
OK, make it:
goto: you don't really want to use it, but if you are still curious, see jump.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
[EMAIL
The inability to inject tokens and expressions into the lexer and
parser is another limitation on what can be done from extensions in
terms of syntax level features. Yes, I know this is more of a problem
with bison and flex than with the design of ZE, but that doesn't make
it any less
DZThe web is one of the most quickly changing areas in computer technology.
DZPHP, being primarily a language for web sites and applications, has to
DZchange constantly in order to be able to remain competitive. And it still
I don't see any real connection between new Web technologies and
Being the colleague Sean refered to in his first post I thought I
might weigh in.
While I agree that once I looked at the base case that Sean worked out
of my code the problem didn't take too long to recognize, that's not
where I first experianced the problem. Problems first rear their head
deep
At 19:37 09/03/2006, Pierre wrote:
On 3/9/06, Steph Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BdBEven though I like jump, people will most likely be searching for
BdBgoto (PHP manual) or goto PHP (Google) when they're trying to
BdBfind out if PHP has such a functionality. So, maybe it's better to
I'd like to raise a motion to 'Give the Language a Rest'.
Tired inbox? :)
Almost a decade since we started with the 2nd iteration on the syntax (PHP
3), and 2 more major versions since then, and we're still heatedly
debating on adding new syntactical, core level features.
Is it really
Steph Fox wrote:
BdBEven though I like jump, people will most likely be searching for
BdBgoto (PHP manual) or goto PHP (Google) when they're trying to
BdBfind out if PHP has such a functionality. So, maybe it's better to
BdBjust call it goto.
For such people we might have a page in the manual
If someone is searching for goto he/she most likely knows what he/she
is looking for. So this also helps experienced developers who are new to
PHP.
An experienced developer would know how to use it...!
That was kind of the point.
- Steph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing
Steph Fox wrote:
If someone is searching for goto he/she most likely knows what
he/she is looking for. So this also helps experienced developers who
are new to PHP.
An experienced developer would know how to use it...!
That was kind of the point.
- Steph
The reason for using jump is
i've done some more analysis and I see where it uses
/usr/lib/nss_files.so.1 during the start up phase- probably this very
getgroups call.
I think that would do it. but why?
another question: is the ext/posix/posix.c bypassed when configured
--disable-posix?
your help is very much appreciated.
The reason for using jump is because it is not a full analog of C's goto
statement. It's my guess that experienced developers will want to lookup
what the behaviour in PHP is.
Cool. You just gave an excellent argument for not calling it 'goto' :)
Seriously, the manual entry will probably use
Zeev Suraski wrote:
You are back to the main problem, you cannot educate people by keeping
them away from the dangerous functions.
Uhm, of course you can. Avoiding problems is by far the best way of
solving them. But it has nothing to do with our topic.
So can we have a 'disable' switch
At 22:43 09/03/2006, Lester Caine wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
You are back to the main problem, you cannot educate people by keeping
them away from the dangerous functions.
Uhm, of course you can. Avoiding problems is by far the best way
of solving them. But it has nothing to do with our
Steph Fox wrote:
Perhaps there could be just the one hard rule. 'If it's possible to
implement it as an extension, do so.' There'd be nothing to prevent
co-opting essential functionality into the core, but also nothing
preventing fly-by-night technologies from having support in PHP. The
Hello Sara,
but if we were moving from flex to re2c for that tokenizing scripts we'd
get a nice speed boost, too. Typically re2c based scanners are 2 to 3 times
faster than lex based ones. And oh-re2c allows unicode scanning (2 byte
input) and you can use the same .re to generate two .c files
No speed boost with opcode caches, which will be bundled in PHP 6 :)
Zeev
At 01:15 10/03/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Sara,
but if we were moving from flex to re2c for that tokenizing scripts we'd
get a nice speed boost, too. Typically re2c based scanners are 2 to 3 times
faster than
Hello Zeev,
yeah! which is why there is no need to do anything on that front :-)
marcus
Friday, March 10, 2006, 12:26:20 AM, you wrote:
No speed boost with opcode caches, which will be bundled in PHP 6 :)
Zeev
At 01:15 10/03/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Sara,
but if we were
Hi,
Just got home from a month in South America and is trying to catch up
on old posts...
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:02:32 -0800, in php.internals [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Andi Gutmans) wrote:
I'm nuking safe_mode and I found something odd. In streams,
php_plain_files_unlink() only checks
On 3/9/06, Steph Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please, Xuefer! Your vote was already recorded, shhh!
i wasn't to vote more than once. it's same vote but with a bit
different syntax changed. oh well, the result is out, this is only my
explaination.
Fix bugs in APC and occasionally introduce new ones.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Does anybody see a problem with this patch (which is currently
against the 5.1.2 release)?
expand_filepath will eventual do a realpath, but it also uses the
realpath cache before calling realpath. VCWD_REALPATH just maps
directly to realpath and doesn't use the realpath cache so for every
Are you sure VCWD_REALPATH doesn't use the realpath cache? It did
last time I checked and I think is still the right method to use there...
At 09:13 PM 3/9/2006, Brian J. France wrote:
Does anybody see a problem with this patch (which is currently
against the 5.1.2 release)?
expand_filepath
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Are you sure VCWD_REALPATH doesn't use the realpath cache? It did last
time I checked and I think is still the right method to use there...
quite
#define VCWD_REALPATH(path, real_path) realpath(path, real_path)
-Rasmus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Are you sure VCWD_REALPATH doesn't use the realpath cache? It did last
time I checked and I think is still the right method to use there...
quite
#define VCWD_REALPATH(path, real_path) realpath(path, real_path)
By the way, I agree that
Seems that needs fixing then (non-TSRM). We should support the
realpath cache also in non-TSRM mode.
At 10:31 PM 3/9/2006, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Are you sure VCWD_REALPATH doesn't use the realpath cache? It did
last time I checked and I think is still the right method to
Just for info: GCC-4.1 now uses faster hand-written recursive-descent parser
(instead of bison generated).
Thanks. Dmitry.
-Original Message-
From: Zeev Suraski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 2:26 AM
To: Marcus Boerger
Cc: Sara Golemon;
50 matches
Mail list logo
