Marcus Boerger schrieb:
> $bla = "${foo\bar::constant}";
This is WORSE than Perl.
OLLi
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
>>This provided we support nested namespaces. Do we need them?
>>
>>JT>>No, we don't need no stinking namespaces. We already have prefixes. :)
>>
>>Did I write the word "nested" in invisible font? Funny, I didn't know my
>>mail client supports it.
>
>Yes, but you don'
Lukas Smith schrieb:
> not sure if phpnamespaces.org is a wise choice for a site that publishes
> prepatched versions of php (see the php license) ..
If I read the mails there correctly this issue is already being worked upon.
> it seems like there is a mailinglist there. while obviously the
>
Roman Ivanov schrieb:
> Radical idea:
> 1) Use :.
> 2) Make : to work like ::.
> 3) Make : to work like ->.
> 4) But no one will agree to it anyway, so I stop here.
Nope. I agree ;-)
But that train has already left.
(although I still think : could be made to work for the namespaces)
OLLi
--
PHP
Bart de Boer schrieb:
> namespace JessieStuff {
> class FirstClass { ... }
> class SecondClass {
> public $obj;
> function __construct() {
> $this->obj = new FirstClass();
> }
> }
> }
>
> Now we'd import this with prefixing everything and the
> result would be something tha
l0t3k schrieb:
> Language behaviour should absolutely NOT depend on an .ini setting.
Using an .ini setting was just an idea so there would be a possibility
to have namespaces totally "hidden" from the beginning programmer. This
honors the KISS priciple: You require() some package and don't even n
Bart de Boer schrieb:
> So, if namespace JessieStuff contains multiple classes. They would all
> become JessieStuff_ClassName.
>
> Assuming the package relies on its own classes, it wouldn't be able to
> call them anymore because all their names have changed.
First of all, everything INSIDE a n
Jessie Hernandez schrieb:
> Please explain what you mean.
Didn't you get my mail? OK, I'll put it in here:
-
I already brought this up once: How difficult is it to introduce an
option to php.ini which has its standard setting in such a way
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
> Definately experimental. It still crashes for me when
> I pass something like ?foo= in either POST or GET. :)
A few days ago I tried to find a compiled version of the input filter
extension for win32 but couldn't find one on the PECL page. As with RC6
of PHP 5.1
Jessie Hernandez schrieb:
> In this case the FOO define will be used. When you do a namespace import,
> you can really only use classes without the namespace prefix (since
> __autoload exists). To reference a function name without the prefix, you
> must import it directly, as:
>
> import function
Lukas Smith schrieb:
> Oliver Grätz wrote:
>
>
>>one absolutely needs to use namespaces inside the ternary. As such cases
>>will be pretty rare, this is no big drawback. The good thing: no
>>whitespace magic is needed!
>
>
> so you replace the need fo
| +1 | +1 | +2 | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Matt Friedman|-| | | | -1 | | | +1 | | -1 |
| | +1 | +1 | | | | | | | |
David Zülke |-| | | | +2 |
Jessie Hernandez schrieb:
> I think this is the best solution thus far. If any one of you still feels a
> need for constants/functions, PLEASE show me a _valid_ example that cannot
> be accomplished by just simply putting the constant/function inside a class
> in the namespace.
No complaints from
Hi folks!
I had some PM discussions about the (presumably premature) death of ":"
as the namespace symbol.
Most people liked this, some liked "::" (which will definetely NOT work)
and then the opinion was very split with a lot of people saying "OK, if
it has to be" to ":::". Some folks even resig
Stanislav Malyshev schrieb:
> yacc can look one token ahead, AFAIR.
This could help for "::" (reading a name and seeing "Oh, one more ::, so
this is one more namespace"), but not for ":" (there the change of
operator precedence would still be needed). OK, now this would have to
be sorted out by s
Stanislav Malyshev schrieb:
> OG>>BUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about what you
> OG>>would like. The ":" for example would work if mandatory whitespace would
> OG>>be introduced for the ternary BUT this is very very bad.
>
> If my vote is counted (not that I asked for i
Marcus Boerger schrieb:
> i honestly wouldn't have execpted things like ';;' or '**' from you.
First of all: Read the first thread! Anything is accepted as wish.
It doesn't matter if it can be realized since we want to get to know
what people like.
My thoughts (disregarding technical possibiliti
| |
Matt Friedman|-| | | -1 | | | +1 | | -1 | |
| +1 | +1 | | | | |
David Zülke |-| | | +2 | | | +1 | -1 | | |
| | -1 | | | | |
Oliver Grätz |*| +2 | +2 | +1 | -1 | +0
Hartmut Holzgraefe schrieb:
> wouldn't that create an amiguity with
>
>T_LESS_THAN T_UNARY_MINUS
>
> like in
>
>if (SOME_CONSTANT<-SOME_OTHER_CONSTANT)
>
> so that we are back to the same problem we alread have with ':'?
Yes we do.
Congratulations, you are the 100th contributer statin
Markus Fischer schrieb:
> Kevin Brown wrote:
>
>>The only scripts that would break (far from "trillions") here would be
>>those where you had a space-less ternary statement comparing two
>>constants (NOT namespace constants -- they don't even exist yet), as
>>in the following case:
>>
>>define('fo
+1 | | | | |
David Zülke |-| | | +2 | | | +1 | -1 | | |
| | -1 | | | | |
Oliver Grätz |*| +2 | | +1 | | | | | | |
| | | |
|-| +1 | | +2 | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Matt Friedman|-| | | -1 | | | +1 | | -1 | |
| +1 | +1 | | | | |
David Zülke |-| | | +2 | | | +1 | -1 | | |
| | -1 | | | | |
Oliver Grätz
David Zülke schrieb:
> Foo:>bar:>Baz::getTest()->foo();
> Foo<-bar<-Baz::getTest()->foo();
> Foo:::bar:::Baz::getTest()->foo();
OK, for completeness:
Foo%%bar%%Baz::getTest()->foo();
Yes, it is blocky, as is the :: for class scopes.
But it's very clear to see where the namespaces are and where t
Jasper Bryant-Greene schrieb:
> Oliver Grätz wrote:
>
>>Oliver Grätz schrieb:
>>
>>> :><::<-<:..
>>
>>Whoops, forgot to add "%%"
>>
>
>
> +1 for <- here. It makes namespace hierarchies resemble
Oliver Grätz schrieb:
> Oliver Grätz schrieb:
>
>> :><::<-<:..
>
>
> Whoops, forgot to add "%%"
I really like "%%":
- not on the PHP operators list
- not on the "Periodic table"
- no associations in my mind othe
Oliver Grätz schrieb:
>:><::<-<:..
Whoops, forgot to add "%%"
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Jessie Hernandez schrieb:
> So far, I have these possibilites:
>
> :::
> :>
> <::
> <-
> <:
OK, now that Marcus threw a PostToLongException('bla'), I'd love to get
back to this.
Other suggestions were
: ::->.. \
Now some requirements:
- needs to work without col
Ilia Alshanetsky schrieb:
> I'd prefer ::: over \ for a namespace operator, even though it is
> bordering on the "too-long" limit.
What about these:
PEAR:>Date
PEAR:-Date
OLLi
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Sebastian Bergmann schrieb:
> Marcus Boerger schrieb:
>
>>And i'd say that people wanting namespaces are the minority.
>
>
> The majority of people using PHP does not know what namespaces are
> because they were never in a situation in which they needed them, hence
> they do not "want" them.
Marcus Boerger schrieb:
> Hello Oliver,
>
> it doesn't matter to the compiler whether it is nonsense or not.
> The only thing that matters is whether i can write a correct
> lexer/parser for this without breaking stuff. Guys if we were requiring
> space around the ternary or anything else we don
Oliver Grätz schrieb:
> PS: How about a unicode symbol (egypt god Ra) as namespace operator.
> PHP6 will be all about unicode => Yeah, gazillions of new operator
> symbols. Or register a "PHP namespace separator symbol" that looks like
> the PHP logo. Just kidding...
Res
Jessie Hernandez schrieb:
>>> that's only one case,go with consts. now try
>>>$x = $y ? foo:bar:baz:stupid;
>>[... my two cents...]
> Thank you!!! This is exactly what happens with my patch now in this
> case, one constant named "foo:bar:baz:stupid" is parsed and a syntax
> error is produced be
Gareth Ardron schrieb:
> Jessie Hernandez wrote:
>
>>>Majority asking for namespaces != majority of php users.
>>
>>
>>How do you know? Have you conducted a poll?
My guess:
80.0% "What's a namespace?"
17.0% "I don't care."
2.9% "Yes please, weren't they already promised for 5.0 "
0.1% "Oh no.
Marcus Boerger schrieb:
> Hello Jessie,
>
> that's only one case,go with consts. now try
> $x = $y ? foo:bar:baz:stupid;
That's nonsense. If I as a programmer cannot comprehend what it should
mean by looking at it then I shouldn't expect that from the language.
To me, this looks like the consta
Sara Golemon schrieb:
> ArrayAccess interface for the dimension read/write.
Just to bring the issue up agaian: The current ArrayAccess
implementation does not allow for proper simulation of arrays. This has
been "broken by fixing" (tm) the method prototypes not to allow "&"
anymore in interface im
Sara Golemon schrieb:
> I vote for #ifdefing it out of PHP5, and renaming PECL::Date to iDate or
> Datei for PHP6 (in keeping with mysql tradition).
Datei? Yikes, that's "file" in german and would raise confusion ;-)
OLLi
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe,
Ian P. Christian schrieb:
> I can't help but add that I couldn't agree more.
Thanks. Keeps me warm that people are actually able to be nice.
Even more important as our heating is broken and we've got -2°C.
B. *g*
> [...]
> Also, with you 100% on the \ syntax.
> Jessie and others - keep up the
Rasmus Lerdorf schrieb:
> Pierre, I agree with you that it was a bad idea to turn on the stub date
> class in the final release candidate giving people less than a week to
> notice that we now conflict with a common pear class. We get all the
> breakage and none of the benefits and nobody had a
Sebastian Kugler schrieb:
> Derick,
>
>
>>you will break code that is out there.
>
>
> do you have an idea how much code is "out there" that has classes named
> "Date"?
>
*Raising hand*
And I have it in installations I don't even maintain anymore.
How kind of Derick to probably get someone
Helgi Þormar schrieb:
> Yeah indeed, now I'll have a heap of a time when my customers want to
> upgrade to PHP 5.1, I find it a bit odd to have this kind of breakage ...
> didn't we have similar situation with PEAR::File and the SPL::File ? Which
> was later renamed to FileObject so both could happ
Roman Ivanov schrieb:
> Christian Schneider wrote:
>
>>Please think twice before breaking BC light-heartedly.
>
>
> Please brake BC completely, and rename everything, and reorder
> arguments, and replace array() with a(), and replace $this-> with
> something consise, and replace '->' with '.',
Do you read the posts you're commenting on?
I said there _were_ (there are not anymore) problems with PDO betas on
_Windows_ systems (that was a PECL build for PHP 5.0.3). This was not a
complaint on anything and I didn't complain then because it was beta and
not meant to be used with PHP 5.0.x, i
Ilia Alshanetsky schrieb:
> pdo_mysql is not version specific, it'll work with 3.23,4.0,4.1 and even
> 5.0 version of MySQL.
Well, now it is not anymore. I had to wait several months not being able
to use PDO because my Windows/XAMPP was already using MySQL 4.1 and the
PDO betas were _not_ functio
Marcus Bointon schrieb:
> I posted this on general a while ago and the only conclusion anyone
> could come to is that there's a PHP bug somewhere.
Hm? I tested you code on a Debian 5.1 RC1 system and could not reproduce
the problem. I thought you failed to post the whole code you used since
you
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
>
> [...] instead of waiting what we'll
> break next.
*ROTFL*
You seem to develop a healthy fatalism ;-)
Bier?
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Pierre schrieb:
> This argument is irrelevant. You only hide the possible lack of
> scalability behind hardware improvements.
A "lack of scalability" will only occur if the Unicode features create a
more than linear performance drop which I suppose won't happen. Even if
it becomes three times slo
Ilia Alshanetsky schrieb:
>>And remember: PHP6 will not be released for at least a year. So by then
>>typical servers will run at several hundred MHz more, so perhaps the
>>speed penalty won't be noticed at all.
> And people will do more with PHP ultimately making the MHz boost
> irrelevant. Despi
And remember: PHP6 will not be released for at least a year. So by then
typical servers will run at several hundred MHz more, so perhaps the
speed penalty won't be noticed at all. This is even more true compared
to the current speed of PHP as there will (If I recall this correctly)
be significant p
Matthias Pigulla schrieb:
> [...] The "return new" issue has the interesting side
> effect that notices disappear depending on the constructor's
> implementation details.
Yes. If the language insists on getting on my nerves, well, then it
should at least be consistent in doing do ;-)
> Many peopl
Matthias Pigulla schrieb:
> Sorry, Olli, if that kind of ignores your statements, but I would like
> not to distract from the issue. IIRC, what you suggested is called
> "boxing" in C# and would lead too far here.
I knew I was going further in my comment regarding this issue. It was
never meant as
Matthias Pigulla schrieb:
>>>So, in case of "return new", wouldn't it make sense to remove the
>>>warning as the code is 'legal'? And please, don't start a new "it's
>>>just a friendly notice" flame war.
>>
>> It's just a notice, tune your error_reporting level accordingly.
>
>
> Sorry, but
Matthias Pigulla schrieb:
> So, in case of "return new", wouldn't it make sense to remove the
> warning as the code is 'legal'? And please, don't start a new "it's just
> a friendly notice" flame war.
Throwing a notice here is complete nonsense. All thinkable languages use
this coding style of "r
Marcus Boerger schrieb:
> No. And it is even worse. We start maintaining BC for things we always
> agreed we do not support
This gave me a very silly idea (or not?):
Release a PHP 4.9 version or something like that!
And here's what it looks like: It is a complete PHP 5.1 in disguise plus
a para
Ford, Mike schrieb:
> Yes, very true. I've mentioned before that I think PHP 5's object
> thingummies should be referred to as "handles" (and I'm sure I actually saw
> this usage in early versions of the PHP 5 or Zend Engine 2 proposals). Then,
> it's much clearer that:
>
>$obj2 = $obj1
>
Nuno Lopes schrieb:
> Currently PHP accepts more parameters to a function than the required.
> In English:
> function a($b) {}
> a(1,2,3);
> ?>
>
> PHP accepts this and generates no errors.
This is expected behaviour in PHP! Since PHP does not offer true
overloading of method headers (multiple
Marcus Boerger schrieb:
> ...obviously we cannot change the past.
This is a problem to be fixed. Changing the past is to important. Please
implement it.
AllOLLi
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time
[Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather]
--
PHP Internals - PHP
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
> 10 seconds? Sheesh. If english was my native language, maybe I could do
> it
> that fast but as it isn't, and as I have to first think the phrase in
> finnish
> then traslate it in my head into english and then write it and then fix
> the typos,
> it
Hi again from an "ordinary user"!
This thread has some opponents sharpening their knives in the corners.
Hey guys, cool down! It's only ones and zeroes! ;-)
First of all let's find some agreements points:
- I think most of you agree that it was a bigger problem
fixing it with warning in PHP4 t
Hello gods of PHP development ;-)
I'm just a PHP-programmer, but I've been reading the PHP6 discussions
here for a while, especially the talk about MI vs interfaces.
I've been all for MI up to the moment where Marcus Boerger came up with
this:
> class Document implements Printable {
> delegate
59 matches
Mail list logo
