> From what I understood from Rasmus the biggest challenge with merging APC
> into core is the fact that the compiler currently isn't built to support
> opcode caching. One of the challenges he pointed out was some of the
> MAKE_NOP trickery that can make APC's work a bit more complex than
> necess
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Hi
>
> 2013/1/24 David Soria Parra :
> > This includes a feature freeze. No new features should be comitted to
> > the repository once we tagged the first beta on Feb 7. All outstanding
> > features will have to wait for 5.6.0 in a ye
Hi
2013/1/24 David Soria Parra :
> This includes a feature freeze. No new features should be comitted to
> the repository once we tagged the first beta on Feb 7. All outstanding
> features will have to wait for 5.6.0 in a year unless there is a
This reminds me of yet another old topic:
http://www
> On 01/24/2013 10:47 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > So here I am once again trying to build PHP 5.4.11 on a Solaris 10 server
> > with the following configure options :
>
> > So I think that I should be okay. Do I need to upgrade to curl
> > 7.28.2 and then try building PHP 5.4.11 or am I sort of
On 01/24/2013 10:47 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
So here I am once again trying to build PHP 5.4.11 on a Solaris 10 server
with the following configure options :
So I think that I should be okay. Do I need to upgrade to curl
7.28.2 and then try building PHP 5.4.11 or am I sort of stuck here
at
Looks like a reasonable idea to me. Could you draft an RFC for this?
--Kris
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:39 AM, marius adrian popa wrote:
> Seems that is past it's time
> http://www.novell.com/support/kb/doc.php?id=7003092
>
> I would start with netware folder
> https://github.com/php/php-src/tre
Hi Internals,
as you might have read in the 5.5.0alpha4 announcments, we are moving
forward with 5.5.0. We are already a bit late on the schedule and
we want to begin the beta cycle in 14 days and concentrate on QA
for the 5.5.0 release from now on.
This includes a feature freeze. No new features
disclaimer : I realize that by working on Solaris I am in fringe OS territory.
So here I am once again trying to build PHP 5.4.11 on a Solaris 10 server
with the following configure options :
./configure --with-apxs2=/usr/local/bin/apxs --with-mysql=/opt/mysql/mysql \
--with-libxml-dir=/usr/lo
Seems that is past it's time
http://www.novell.com/support/kb/doc.php?id=7003092
I would start with netware folder
https://github.com/php/php-src/tree/master/netware
and then with all the NETWARE defines
Migration path is clear Linux , Posix , or Windows
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Developm
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:40 PM, hakre wrote:
> When I look into my registry, I see that
>
> .phar
>
> files are classified as "phar_auto_file".
> Does anybody know which program is creating these entries? I remember I
> used the PHP installer from php.net for windows in the past, so probably
>
Is there any reason why the function can't be added in the interim before a
patch is ready?
Or is there a global consensus that the new functionality should be
available under the existing function?
Matt
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Lars Strojny wrote:
> Any news?
>
> Am 04.01.2013 um 13:
Am 24.01.2013 02:12, schrieb Levi Morrison:
I also don't like the `?` for `nullable`. Just stick with PHP
convention and do:
class Foo {
public Bar $bar = NULL;
}
There is no such PHP convention. The PHP convention is *not restrict
type*
(+"loosely typed" addons).
So N
When I look into my registry, I see that
.phar
files are classified as "phar_auto_file".
Does anybody know which program is creating these entries? I remember I used
the PHP installer from php.net for windows in the past, so probably this one
does it, but I don't know for sure and if anybody k
Hi Internals,
PHP 5.5.0alpha4 has been tagged today. This
release contains bug fixes against alpha3, and adds the
class name resolution via scalar and the DateTimeImmutable
The packages can be found at:
http://downloads.php.net/dsp
As you know, you may read the NEWS file in the source tree f
I've kept my head down since it's obvious that there is still no consensus as to
how the latest accessors system will work including an RFC to change what is
being proposed if it's accepted anyway? THAT is just wrong!
Part of the problem I see is that people want to replace the __get/__set vers
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I asked many native speakers and all understood it as "when 5.5.0 stable
> > release will be announced".
>
> I didn't even think it may mean anything else until I've read this
> thread. I don't think any significant number of voters
16 matches
Mail list logo
