As I already said many times, I disagree with the (recent) attitude to
break things in minor releases (no matter which things).
We have added an E_STRICT mode, such changes should raise a notice in
E_STRICT and be what it should be in the next major version. However,
if the error/notice is only
Hi guys,
like last year, I just wanted to invite you to submit a
session proposal to this year's International PHP Conference,
5th - 8th November 2006 at Frankfurt/Main.
You can see the CfP at http://www.phpconference.com/ , please
submit your proposals at http://input.entwickler.com/ The
CfP
On Thu, 11 May 2006, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello guys,
sorry but i worked 12 hours on patch that brought half of the todo list
for 5.2 because all that stuff is unluckily interlinked.and guess i can
make changes in a dev tree as well as there might be errors in head and i
even more
Marcus,
Zend: __toString() Done (marcus)
Does this mean that finally __toString acts like the whole world would want
it to? Can it finally be true? :)
Ron
Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello internals,
i am now done with most bigger parts of
As it is a time of big changes and incompatibilities,
maybe it is a good moment to change PDO::quote method
to quote NULL to NULL instead of an empty string.
This is the consistent behaviour, don't you think?
Marcus,
Zend: __toString() Done (marcus)
Does this mean that finally __toString acts like the whole world would want
it to? Can it finally be true? :)
Ron
Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello internals,
i am now done with most bigger parts of
Hi,
my 2c:
1) it shouldn't replace the visibility definition: we could also have
protected readonly properties.
2) It only requires a bit of discipline, not to edit the properties you
want to be readonly.
3) how would you check if the property if readonly ? Trying it could
result to a Fatal
In C++ you'd use private for this. All object members are readable, but
modifyability depends on the relation between the caller and the object. I
don't quite understand why PHP is doing it differently.
- Ron
Jason Garber [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello
Antony Dovgal wrote:
Only if you created it during the call.
?php
function foo($arg) {
}
foo($nonex);
var_dump(isset($nonex));
?
bool(false)
$ php -r 'function foo($foo){} function bar(){ foo($var);
var_dump(get_defined_vars());} bar();'
array(1) {
[var]=
NULL
}
--
PHP
On 11-May-06, at 2:29 PM, Bastian Grupe wrote:
Marian Kostadinov wrote:
There is an issue about error_reporting setting in php.ini. I took
my php
5.1 php.ini file and used it for 5.2. Strangely it seemed that
E_STRICT
suddenly turned on.
Is this an intended change or a bug?
AFAIK it was
On 11-May-06, at 4:37 PM, Brian Moon wrote:
How did this thread turn into complaining about tests? The
complaint was about breaking working code. I don't give a crap
about tests. I want my code to work. And, I believe that was the
original point of this thread.
Complaining about
On Fri, 12 May 2006 10:17:23 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ilia Alshanetsky) wrote:
On 11-May-06, at 2:29 PM, Bastian Grupe wrote:
Marian Kostadinov wrote:
There is an issue about error_reporting setting in php.ini. I
took my php
5.1 php.ini file and used it for 5.2. Strangely it seemed
I can see where it could come in handy but I honestly think it'd be bloat.
We have to relax with the OO features because the increased code size
has already made it harder to maintain and it has the potential to
make PHP far more complicated than what it should be.
At 04:35 PM 5/11/2006,
Jason Garber wrote:
Would it be possible to create a new object property attribute:
readonly
class xx
{
readonly $bar;
}
$o = new xx();
$o-bar = 10;
FATAL ERROR
This way, PHP would allow reading (as if it were public), but only
allow writing from within the
Some might consider the following a rant, personally
I just feel passionately about php and feel I need to speak up.
that you might consider it/me irrelevant or 'moany' is your
privelege - so with all due respect (
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On 11-May-06, at 4:37 PM, Brian Moon wrote:
How did
__get() and __set() are great, but 90% of the time, I find myself
using them to create public readonly properties.
I can see where it could come in handy but I honestly think it'd be bloat.
We have to relax with the OO features because the increased code size has
already made it harder to
Etienne Kneuss wrote:
2) It only requires a bit of discipline, not to edit the properties you
want to be readonly.
well, then we don't need private/protected/public at all,
as it only requires a bit of discipline not to access the
properties you want to be visible to the class or its
children
Bastian Grupe wrote:
Uhh... how about using private and only using a regular
getter (the Java-style) and no setter?
class xx
{
private $bar;
public getBar() { return $bar; }
}
i think you're missing the point, the idea is to *not*
have to write that extra getter line ...
Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Bastian Grupe wrote:
You didn't want to return $bar in your example, you wanted
to return $this-bar so you already ran into one of the
issues here ;)
Blame my recent use of Java here ;-)
Well, I think the whole point of ppp is to having to use setters and
getters
Bastian Grupe wrote:
Blame my recent use of Java here ;-)
Well, I think the whole point of ppp is to having to use setters and
getters consistently.
i'm going to blame your use of Java for this one, ppp is way older
than the setter/getter fashion and as far as i remember the main
reason to
It seems to me this would be a great option to add. How difficult would it
be? Would it take significant editing of the source code? I don't see the
issue in adding it - seems like it would have plenty of places to be used.
Though, if it is added, the name 'readonly' seems a little misleading. It
Hello,
PHP implements many features, and skips many features. I think the
rule of thumb needs to be that if a feature is implemented, finish
it.
For example, if you provide __get() and __set(), provide an
efficient way of handling the normal use case.
If you start triggering an
I can take any feature in PHP and add features :)
At 01:44 PM 5/12/2006, Jason Garber wrote:
Hello,
PHP implements many features, and skips many features. I think the
rule of thumb needs to be that if a feature is implemented, finish
it.
For example, if you provide __get() and
Yes, I also consider the visibility as a candy functionality.
Etienne Kneuss wrote:
2) It only requires a bit of discipline, not to edit the properties you
want to be readonly.
well, then we don't need private/protected/public at all,
as it only requires a bit of discipline not to access
Etienne Kneuss wrote:
Yes, I also consider the visibility as a candy functionality.
Etienne Kneuss wrote:
2) It only requires a bit of discipline, not to edit the properties you
want to be readonly.
well, then we don't need private/protected/public at all,
as it only requires
Andi Gutmans wrote:
I can take any feature in PHP and add features :)
Is that an offer ;-)? I've got a couple you can add, lol.
Dante
At 01:44 PM 5/12/2006, Jason Garber wrote:
Hello,
PHP implements many features, and skips many features. I think the
rule of thumb needs to be that
Is there something broken with FastCGI version shipped with 5.1.4? A
quick scan of the lists (general, bugs, windows) shows that people are
having problems with it accross the board. Apache + fcgi on Linux,
isapi_fcgi.dll on windows, etc.
Edin
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
Hello Pierre, hello Ilia,
adding E_STRICT was an oversight from me. However we must have E_STRICT to
be able to inform our user base about changes removals in upcoming version.
That was decided upon in the PDM iirc.
best regards
marcus
p.s.: this is a new version with some additions and
Jason Garber wrote:
There are a lot of casual users of PHP. There are also the people
out there who are buying the Zend products, buying the MySQL support
contracts, using PHP at Yahoo! -- the people who have chosen to use
PHP OVER Java/.NET/Perl, because it is a great language -- the
I'm not finished yet, but I'm at a decent check point, so I thought I'd send
out what I've done so far with the hope of getting some feedback.
The attached files contain the patches and new files (wrt 5.1.4) for
implementing import and export of PEM strings for both public and private keys
Jason Garber wrote:
Would it be possible to create a new object property attribute:
readonly
Why not make it a little more generic? Say, make readonly an attribute that
applies to the ppp tags as opposed to making it a new access class.
Eg. if a member is 'public readonly' then it's
Hello Ron,
if not i am still missing something, actuall i *fear* that there are places
in the engine that do not adhere to the new semantics. If you spot one
please inform me, prefereable by writing a test case. If you don't feel able
too just let me know what you think is wrong.
best regards
32 matches
Mail list logo
