Java just happens to be the programming language that I associate the
most with the programming language feature in question.
So for you packages == Java packages. Great, since PHP does not have
Java packages, problem solved, it's not packages.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
Stanislav Malyshev schrieb:
> So for you packages == Java packages. Great, since PHP does not have
> Java packages, problem solved, it's not packages.
You asked for a specification of packages in a programming language.
I just pointed you to the specification of packages in Java.
That's all :)
On 8/16/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Java just happens to be the programming language that I associate the
> > most with the programming language feature in question.
>
> So for you packages == Java packages. Great, since PHP does not have
> Java packages, problem solved,
So for you namespaces == C namespaces. Great, since PHP does not have
C packages, problem solved, it's not namespaces.
I gave you description of namespaces which clearly states what namespace
is, and has nothing to do with C or any specific programming language at
all. When I asked what is the
You asked for a specification of packages in a programming language.
I just pointed you to the specification of packages in Java.
Yes, I know Java implements packages this way. And Perl implements them
other way. And C yet another way.
And PHP has at least three packaging implementations whic
On 8/16/07, Wez Furlong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Per previous discussion on internals, there are other "more active"
> maintainers for COM right now, and by assigning to me, you're
> assigning to the wrong person.
Andy Wharmby is active. I added him in CC.
Andy, can you take a look at all CO
On 8/16/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So for you namespaces == C namespaces. Great, since PHP does not have
> > C namespaces, problem solved, it's not namespaces.
>
> I gave you description of namespaces which clearly states what namespace
> is, and has nothing to do with C
On 16/08/07, Gwynne Raskind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2007, at 2:00 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:
> > Did you get any further with merging this? It would help users of
> > the XQuery language.
> >
> > If I understand your intent, I would be able to change the code
> > fragment
> > bel
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Gwynne Raskind wrote:
> I didn't get any further, no :(. The decision of whether to merge the nowdocs
> patch is out of my hands now, since I don't have source karma. However, since
> the main thing standing in the way of its implementation was concern over the
> usefulness, y
On 8/16/07, Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The idea behind assign was to get some love for a given bug. That's
> not really the right way to do it though. I hope the new issues
> tracker will let us send mails to a group of maintainers when a new
> issue is raised. Then they can do the right
On 8/16/07, Hannes Magnusson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/16/07, Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The idea behind assign was to get some love for a given bug. That's
> > not really the right way to do it though. I hope the new issues
> > tracker will let us send mails to a group of main
On 8/16/07, Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/16/07, Hannes Magnusson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 8/16/07, Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > The idea behind assign was to get some love for a given bug. That's
> > > not really the right way to do it though. I hope the new issu
On 8/15/07, Hannes Magnusson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Attached* is a patch introducing a new parameter to in_array() and
> array_search() which will set the internal pointer to the first
> location of $needle in the $haystack (granted that $needle exists
> within the $haystack).
Or
On 8/16/07, Sebastian Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/packages.doc.html
Thinking on 'packages' further I think that part of my objection to
use of the term for PHP is that Java provides built-in packages
(java.io etc etc) while PHP does
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I wrote an extension/module (quite some time ago) for PHP4, for the
last year or so (on and off) I've been rewriting it for PHP5.
Under PHP4 it works properly as an embedded extension or a loadable
module.
Under PHP5 it only appears to work pr
1) did you try to hook into your extension with debugger?
2) is your extension open-source (I mean: can you show the actual source-code?)
3) do you develop your extension with both zts and debug modes enabled?
On 8/16/07, BuildSmart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Translating documentation to Hungarian - chappy has told me
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Here we come again =\
> > So for you namespaces == C namespaces. Great, since PHP does not have
> > C packages, problem solved, it's not namespaces.
>
> I gave you description of namespaces which clearly states what namespace
> is, and has nothing to do with C or any specific programming lang
Hi,
All of the debate over whether this is a true namespace implementation
is in my opinion completely bogus (translate: I think "namespace" is a
fine choice for the reserved word, and "package" is a dangerously
misleading choice), but since there is so much noisy dissent, I have an
alternative pr
Reply to bug reports and so on...
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Read the purpose of both, which restrictions/limitations both have,
how are they defined, how are they used, etc and you'll see if the
current implementation is more like 'namespace' or 'package'. It's not
related to package Java, namespace C, def, zendspace of whatever.
That's what I am trying
On 8/16/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Read the purpose of both, which restrictions/limitations both have,
> > how are they defined, how are they used, etc and you'll see if the
> > current implementation is more like 'namespace' or 'package'. It's not
> > related to package
You can use zendspace. (Gregory) If you want me to get Johannes patch
and convert it to zendspace, just tell me.
So it goes like this:
PHP Group: "Good news everyone! PHP now has zendspaces!".
PHP users: "WTF???"
Internally in the Zend framework (in a class definition, for exmaple),
it can use
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 09:33 +0400, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> At least, I have one additional namespace related patch, that is not
> accepted yet.
>
> Renaming may require a lot of additional work with it.
Well, in my experience it's simpler to do such renaming inside an patch
(then it's a simple
Stas,
Namespace implementations for languages have been around for decades
in one form or another. People use the languages they are used to
developing in to demonstrate their points on how it should work, and
what it should be called when it works a certain way. Its 2007. Given
that we hav
On 8/10/07, Johannes Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think we reached the consensus to rename namespaces to packages as our
> implementation is more package-like. Therefore I wrote the corresponding
> patch which tries to get rid of all "namespaces" and "ns" (well, not all
> "ns" on
Hi Andi,
On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 09:13 -0700, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Yeah and we reviewed the patch and saw it was good.
Thanks for the feedback, such information is always appreciated :-)
> I think what's missing here is that to the best of my knowledge Ilia
> reached out off list to revert the pa
Hi Tijnema,
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 20:27 +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> On 8/10/07, Johannes Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think we reached the consensus to rename namespaces to packages as our
> > implementation is more package-like. Therefore I wrote the corresponding
> > patch w
On 8/16/07, Johannes Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Tijnema,
>
> On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 20:27 +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> > On 8/10/07, Johannes Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I think we reached the consensus to rename namespaces to packages as our
> > > implementati
I didn't get any further, no :(. The decision of whether to merge the
nowdocs patch is out of my hands now, since I don't have source karma.
However, since the main thing standing in the way of its implementation
was concern over the usefulness, your comment is very helpful, and I'd
like to ope
Hi again,
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 20:50 +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> Well, why does PHP compiles fine without the patch?, and why is this
> file in the snapshot package when it is generated from flex?
Since snaps are for users, CVS versions (and patches) are for developers
and we expect developers to h
On 8/16/07, Johannes Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 20:50 +0200, Tijnema wrote:
>
> > Well, why does PHP compiles fine without the patch?, and why is this
> > file in the snapshot package when it is generated from flex?
>
> Since snaps are for users, CVS v
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Tijnema wrote:
> Well, why does PHP compiles fine without the patch?, and why is this
> file in the snapshot package when it is generated from flex?
>
>
> I have flex 2.5.33 installed btw, that's fine right?
No it's not, we only support 2.5.4.
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
ht
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 21:27 +0200, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> > I have flex 2.5.33 installed btw, that's fine right?
>
> Yes, check the output of configure for details why it wasn't found.
Bah, I hate numbers. We need flex 2.5.4, not 2.5.33. 2.5.33 won't work
with the engine's skeleton file.
joh
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Tijnema wrote:
> On 8/16/07, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No it's not, we only support 2.5.4.
[snip]
> and btw derick, since when is 2.5.4 newer than 2.5.33? 2.5.4 has been
> released in 1997, and 2.5.33 in 2006, which is still the latest stable
> version at
On 16.08.2007 23:40, Tijnema wrote:
On 8/16/07, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No it's not, we only support 2.5.4.
Confusing answers, but anyway, configure doesn't fail on flex, neither
does it generate a warning or such. It says (from the log) Checking
for flex.. and Checking for f
Hello Ralph,
thanks for the very good explanation, but don't expect to get anything
back it is the same arguemnt I tried already - Expectations based on
experience from existing languages. Rather then reachign for the straw of
non existing features in other languages.
best regards
marcus
T
Hello Lukas,
this is a no issue. Prefix your code and be done!
marcus
Wednesday, August 15, 2007, 3:37:20 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> Someone in the Doctrine channel just brought up the issue of having to
> look forward to ensure mid term compatibility when choosing names for
> identifiers. I g
In that specific case, a method called import() was in cause (of course,
conflicting with the namespace/package/whatever package). Do you propose
prefixing all method names ?
On 8/16/07, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Lukas,
>
> this is a no issue. Prefix your code and be do
Hello Stanislav,
what the hell are you talking about? We had a namespace implementation and
now we have a new one. One that for a lot of people here smells like
packages. There are no three or more different ones. None of them was ever
accepted or comitted. Actually I doubt that any of them was e
Hello Nicolas,
yes. All my global functions and my classes are prefixed.
marcus
Thursday, August 16, 2007, 10:37:30 PM, you wrote:
> In that specific case, a method called import() was in cause (of course,
> conflicting with the namespace/package/whatever package). Do you propose
> prefixing
On 8/16/07, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Lukas,
>
> this is a no issue. Prefix your code and be done!
>
That means prefixing your methods as well ?
The problem is when one calls something like a method "import()"
You prefix your functions ? I think this is silly. Prefix th
So going with existing expectation is good or bad?
Having our implementation match some existing one because the solution
is right for both - good. Imitating existing implementation just because
it exists in some other language - bad (not always, but in this case).
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend
Hello Stanislav,
Thursday, August 16, 2007, 7:13:45 PM, you wrote:
>> Read the purpose of both, which restrictions/limitations both have,
>> how are they defined, how are they used, etc and you'll see if the
>> current implementation is more like 'namespace' or 'package'. It's not
>> related to p
And oh the original implementation did not work either. And hey it had
nestng and wasnt't bound to files.
For what it worth, I think there's a link between nesting and not working :)
Oh and speaking of your wiki again. Your wiki does not list any of the very
hard limitations we have in the cur
On 8/16/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I didn't get any further, no :(. The decision of whether to merge the
> > nowdocs patch is out of my hands now, since I don't have source karma.
> > However, since the main thing standing in the way of its implementation
> > was concern
I didn't know there was another maintainer, the EXTENSIONS file (only reference
I know which has any info about maintainers) only lists you as the sole
maintainer for com_dotnet.
This extension really belongs to PECL, it's a) only for win32 b) not something
we need in core.
--Jani
Wez Furlo
I don't see a difference between a "fatal error call to undefined
function" and or a parse error. It can go without problem in 5.3.
Ah, there is a difference - you can do function_exists to check for a
function, but you can do nothing if your file doesn't parse.
<<< was never obvious, there
PHP users: "Wait.. WTF? These don't act like namespaces - where are the
braces?"
That's like saying "BMW Z4 is not a car - it has only two seats!"
PHP users: "These act more like... Java packages. Why are they called
namespaces?"
Java packages are namespace implementation, btw.
--
Stanislav
On 16 Aug, 2007, at 1148, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
You can use zendspace. (Gregory) If you want me to get Johannes patch
and convert it to zendspace, just tell me.
So it goes like this:
PHP Group: "Good news everyone! PHP now has zendspaces!".
PHP users: "WTF???"
PHP Group: "It's like a nam
On 16 Aug, 2007, at 1737, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
PHP users: "Wait.. WTF? These don't act like namespaces - where
are the braces?"
That's like saying "BMW Z4 is not a car - it has only two seats!"
That doesn't change the fact that that was the very reaction of this
list.
PHP users:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As promised two weeks ago, the 5.2.4RC2 was released today and the
sources for the release can be found here:
http://downloads.php.net/ilia/php-5.2.4RC2.tar.bz2 (md5sum:
dc6589d253b4ac5010603c5927f33546 )
Windows binaries should become availab
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 17:51 -0600, scott lewis wrote:
> On 16 Aug, 2007, at 1737, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>
> >> PHP users: "Wait.. WTF? These don't act like namespaces - where
> >> are the braces?"
> >
> > That's like saying "BMW Z4 is not a car - it has only two seats!"
>
> That doesn't cha
I wasn't talking about global functions and classes, I was talking about
class methods. David pretty much sums this up in his email.
On 8/16/07, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Nicolas,
>
> yes. All my global functions and my classes are prefixed.
>
> marcus
>
> Thursday, Aug
On 8/17/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see a difference between a "fatal error call to undefined
> > function" and or a parse error. It can go without problem in 5.3.
>
> Ah, there is a difference - you can do function_exists to check for a
> function, but you can do
On 8/16/07, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Nicolas,
>
> yes. All my global functions and my classes are prefixed.
Prefix the methods are not a solution.
The only cases where it is acceptable are the magic methods (when we
introduce new ones) like __get/set. But that happens r
56 matches
Mail list logo
