+1 from me
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky i...@prohost.org wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals
list regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the patch
has been revised to address the major concerns that were
If I understand correctly I vote.
+1 for Issue 1 option 1
+1 for Issue 2
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Greg Beaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaceissues
Read it and discuss. Let's be clear people: the technical problems in
namespaces are limited and
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Geoffrey Sneddon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 10 Oct 2008, at 06:03, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
1) rip them out
I'm +1 on this. We simply don't have consensus, and I don't see anyway we
can have consensus by the time 5.3 has to be frozen. Once namespaces
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Jean-philippe Serafin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many people have starting working on top level application using
namespaces, so there will a very bad buzz over the php community if
namespaces are ripped out...
There code should work fine in PHP 6 without any
+1 from me
in PHP 5.3 deprecation notices have been split of from E_STRICT into
E_DEPRECATED
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 6:45 AM, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 4:55 AM, Lars Strojny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everbody,
regarding my mail from yesterday, I've
I would agree, they seem to cause more problems and pollution than it would
solve.
I like the idea behind namespaces but what I've seen of the current
implementations I would rather do without.
Unfortunately I don't have any ideas or solutions to the problems.
/James Dempster
On Thu, Jun 26
I find it interesting that we could quite possibly get just as many clashes
with namespaced code.
Of course it comes down to how well the developer implements there code.
It's almost like namespace is just a method of aliasing long class names.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith
what I find really annoying about all this namespace stuff, is how would
that be any different from
class Fully_Qualified_Class_Name_Declaration { }
/James
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Stan Vassilev | FM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
I suppose this has been discussed before, so I'll not
.
4) subtly different resolution rules for functions/classes/constants
So I'm trying to to address 1) in this thread.
Regards,
Stan Vassilev
- Original Message -
*From:* James Dempster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* Stan Vassilev | FM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Cc:* internals@lists.php.net
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Saturday 31 May 2008, James Dempster wrote:
I would agree with you, I think namespaces should wait for a later
version.
Maybe 6 or even later. I believe there are many problems that need to be
sorted be namespaces
I would start by saying it's bad design. you should use getters and setters
which you can define in you interface
--
/James
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07 AM, John Carter -X (johncart - PolicyApp Ltd
at Cisco) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcus,
I understand why Interfaces can't have bodies, but
iconv_mime_encode seems a bit broken for Q scheme, see
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=43314
Could some one please apply the patch to CVS trunk. I've tested and it seems
to work.
Thanks
--
/James
12 matches
Mail list logo
