how many source files I have
that contain long sections where each line contains multiple references
to the same object.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Stut wrote:
It may not be clear to some people, but there are many things in the
every language that aren't necessarily obvious and I don't think that's
a reason not to implement something.
I think that is one of the strongest reasons not to implement something
actually
outputting content
other than HTML to include a line that modifies the default behaviour.
Surely the benefits far outweigh that cost.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Stut wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf:
Consider very common (abbreviated) code like this:
$user_data = $_REQUEST['data'];
switch($output_format) {
Question: where is the output format feature documented?
Once I know
looking for
interface or class. Both are possible.
This would need to come from the user implementation of __autoload
through naming conventions or a lookup table. PHP does not get involved
with resolving a type to a filename, and rightly so.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP Internals - PHP
LAUPRETRE François (P) wrote:
From: Stut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This would need to come from the user implementation of __autoload
through naming conventions or a lookup table. PHP does not
get involved
with resolving a type to a filename, and rightly so.
The question is not to have PHP
idiotic attitude I've ever come across.
-Stut
BuildSmart wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2007, at 09:02:23, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Dear Mr BuildSmart
BuildSmart wrote:
SInce I didn't consider it a bug but rather a minor error of importance,
just out
addslashes() on each input element you wish to send to a
database.
As far as I was aware addslashes is inadequate for this purpose. Should
this not point people to use database-specific escaping functions rather
than addslashes?
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
is that it's slower. I'd be interested in any material
you have to back up that statement.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
, it just looks right (parameters are separated
by a comma not a space).
Because those macros may be defined as empty, meaning you'd be trying to
compile...
php_myextension_globals_ctor(myextension_globals , );
...which the compiler is not gonna like at all.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP
an extension. Is there any
documentation on this? If not, can someone point me in the right direction?
Buy the book: Extending and Embedding PHP by Sara Goleman.
It covers classes and a whole lot more. Required reading for anyone
developing PHP extensions.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP
Hi all,
Just wanted to get your opinion on a discussion currently going on on
the general list.
Why does the PHP session extension not use something like the user agent
to validate that a session ID has not been hijacked? Or is this
something that just hasn't been implemented yet?
-Stut
, but that's really a secondary goal ;)
Cheers.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
of my question.
The answer seems to be that you can't do it reliably.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 21:11 +0100, Stut wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
The session store is just a session store. It is not a
login/authentication mechanism and thus doesn't have any of the
protections you might want to add to that. Therefore
correctly and against the right
category/project. At least then you can get an accurate picture from the
bug list.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
; ?
What a mess!...
I agree, but I do like the ?= tag. Personally I would like to see short
tags dropped but retain support for ?= as it makes templates a lot
easier to read, i.e. ?=$var? against ?php print $var; ?.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe
.
Yeah, one setting in php.ini against any number of tags in any number of
scripts. Now that's what I call a reasoned argument.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
that I don't think
that's too much information for a mail header, and it's exactly what
would be needed.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
be better to have an option that would provide the domain
name and the filename relative to the site root (if available).
Also, I'm assuming this is configurable via php_flag in an Apache
configuration file?
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On 13-Dec-06, at 5:12 PM, Stut wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Is there any interest in adding support for logging of mail() calls
and/or adding options that allow identification of who sent the e-mail.
I've wrote a quick patch that enables this functionality via two
it much, but I believe you need to cast attributes coming
out of SimpleXML, in this case probably to an int.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
they have achieved using that attitude I
would think twice before criticising it.
Bit of a ramble, sorry about that. Hopefully this won't be taken as a
flame, just a response from an outside observer.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http
your book, but this couldn't wait until it arrives.
Thanks again.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
)
PHP_REQUIRE_CXX()
fi
I had expected the PHP_REQUIRE_CXX() macro to trigger a change to the
link command, but it does not seem to have done anything beyond
influencing what is used to compile the extension itself.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe
all the
superglobals are empty. Turning off auto_globals_jit fixes it, as does
disabling the Zend Platform. Dunno if that helps you or not.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
. This change will require the ARG_ to
start a the begining of the line.
No need for such a requirement. I don't know whether the JS regex is
PCRE or not, but I believe something like this will solve that issue...
re = new RegExp(^\s*(ARG_(ENABLE|WITH)\([^;]+\);), gm);
-Stut
--
PHP Internals
and configure others if needed.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I've just started developing a new extension, checked out the latest
source and found this snafu. I assume it's a typo.
-Stut
Index: phpize.in
===
RCS file: /repository/php-src/scripts/phpize.in,v
retrieving revision 1.32
diff -u -u
not
experienced enough to know the implementation implications. It would
certainly need an INI flag to enable/disable it but I would suggest that
it be enabled by default.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
extension using
MODULE_GLOBALS the results of which suggest that these variables are per
process. I'm just looking for some confirmation that shared memory is
the way to go before I jump down that particular black hole.
TIA.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
and Postfix.
Cheers.
-Stut
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
,
but I can use system and passthru without any issues. I'm fairly
certain it's not related to Apache2.
-Stut
On 17/12/05, Jani Taskinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need to use the prefork MPM within Apache2.
Rebuilding apache like that propably wont make any difference.
And you
As far as I can tell it is using the prefork MPM since I believe this
is the default option for building it with the FreeBSD port. How can I
tell for sure?
Thanks.
-Stut
On 17/12/05, Jani Taskinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need to use the prefork MPM within Apache2.
Rebuilding
34 matches
Mail list logo
