On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
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
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
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
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
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
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 l...@strojny.net wrote:
Any news?
Am
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:40 PM, hakre hanskren...@yahoo.de 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
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
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 \
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
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 map...@gmail.comwrote:
Seems that is past it's time
http://www.novell.com/support/kb/doc.php?id=7003092
I would start with netware folder
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
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
Hi
2013/1/24 David Soria Parra d...@php.net:
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:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen ka...@php.net wrote:
Hi
2013/1/24 David Soria Parra d...@php.net:
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
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
necessary.
16 matches
Mail list logo
