PHP 4 Bug Database summary - http://bugs.php.net
Num Status Summary (636 total including feature requests)
===[Arrays related]===
31114 Assigned foreach modify array
===[CGI
Oh, I didn't know you could nest these things..
-1000 for whole namespace idea: PREFIX!
--Jani
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
Gah! I have to squint and count the colons in something like
System:::Socket:::Pair::open(). Yikes.
My vote is for \.
-Andrei
On Nov
Hello Sara,
sorry to jump in, i didn'T read the thread but i have more ideas.
From my point of view view should have the whole thing support any
target. So idefinitively want to call it goto and if it cannot be
goto i want to favor log_jump or long_goto or hey what about 'bad'.
Also can't we do
I'm indifferent to adding the restricted goto, and against adding a
full-featured goto. We can do well without either of them.
Zeev
At 02:27 28/11/2005, George Schlossnagle wrote:
me 3.
goto is good.
Wez Furlong wrote:
me also
On 11/27/05, Edin Kadribasic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would you have to do that. You only have to look at the
last :: / ::: sequence. It's not that hard.
- David
Am 28.11.2005 um 07:27 schrieb Andrei Zmievski:
Gah! I have to squint and count the colons in something like
System:::Socket:::Pair::open(). Yikes.
My vote is for \.
-Andrei
Marcus,
You saw my patch that works with :: and doesn't break any scripts.
Dmitry.
-Original Message-
From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 3:42 PM
To: Bob Silva
Cc: 'Christian Schneider'; 'PHP internals'
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP
PHP 5 Bug Database summary - http://bugs.php.net
Num Status Summary (396 total including feature requests)
===[*General Issues]==
25665 Assigned var_dump/print_r hang on NaN and INF
26771 Suspended register_tick_funtions crash under
What concerns me most is that ?php= does not work, regardless if short
tags will be disabled or not in php6. I currently use %= to counter
this, but I am most certainly *not* happy with it.
So a clean ?php= solution would be ideal, so I wouldn't have to care
about xml/xsl files parsed and
:: would work? +1 then
- David
Am 28.11.2005 um 09:27 schrieb Dmitry Stogov:
Marcus,
You saw my patch that works with :: and doesn't break any scripts.
Dmitry.
-Original Message-
From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 3:42 PM
To: Bob
NBNgives the opportunity to screw their code to programmers, are you also
NBNaffirming that C programmers are smarter than PHP programmers ? Goto has
had
Code of C programmers oftenly harder to understand, especially when
features like goto are used, especially if the programmer does not take
IPCIt seems illogical to put a limit on jumping backwards just because
IPCsomeone mihgt make messy code. People are perfectly capable of
IPCmaking messy code regardless of what steps you might make to try to
IPCprevent it.
This is not correct. Example: if we had pointers (meaning, real
Zeev Suraski wrote:
I'm indifferent to adding the restricted goto, and against adding a
full-featured goto. We can do well without either of them.
As I keep being told - If you don't like something you don't have to
use it ;) But while a controlled goto could be a useful tool for some
OGBUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about what you
OGwould like. The : for example would work if mandatory whitespace would
OGbe introduced for the ternary BUT this is very very bad.
If my vote is counted (not that I asked for it :) then I vote against all
funky syntax,
The PHP 5.0.5 disappeared from download page. What does it mean? There will be
5.0.6? 5.0.4 is the last from 5.0.x series?
--
.''`.Piotr Roszatycki, Netia SA
: :' :mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `' mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
`-
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
Lester Caine wrote:
So rather than wasting time getting all my sites working with PHP5.0.5
(which is why *I* have not had time to run up 5.1 yet) I should have
taken the other option and ignored it and gone straight to since now I
have to go through the same exercise to get 5.1 playing fairly
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
So rather than wasting time getting all my sites working with PHP5.0.5
(which is why *I* have not had time to run up 5.1 yet) I should have
taken the other option and ignored it and gone straight to since now I
have to go through the same exercise to
My primary concern is that 5.0.5 still consists some (in 5.1 resolved)
bugs and security holes.
Since it is unlikely to assume that people will move to 5.1.1
immediately IMO there should be a 5.0.6 with the current fixes.
Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
The PHP 5.0.5 disappeared from download page.
On 11/25/05, Arnar Mar Sigurðsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a update of the get_headers patch i sent in a long time ago and was
ignored. Patch is written with the latest cvs snapshot of 5.1. Hope it makes
it
way to 5.1.1
Info:
mixed get_headers ( string url [, bool format | string
Lester Caine wrote:
But is not available for windows yet :(
In the meantime I am still receiving 'complaints' from people who have
only just switched to 5.0.5 - and now their sites don't work - As well
as people WHO I HAVE TOLD NOT TO USE 5.1 who - can't get my code to run
on it.
*PLEASE*
Edin
You are missing my point - I'd rather STOP people downloading the stuff
that is CAUSING problems everywhere !!!
I am still playing catchup with 5.0.5 and now there ase 'complaints' on
various forums that some package does not work with 5.1 - do I now fix
that - since people are NOT
On 28.11.2005 15:01, Lester Caine wrote:
Edin
You are missing my point - I'd rather STOP people downloading the stuff
that is CAUSING problems everywhere !!!
I am still playing catchup with 5.0.5 and now there ase 'complaints' on
various forums that some package does not work with 5.1 - do
Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 28.11.2005 15:01, Lester Caine wrote:
Edin
You are missing my point - I'd rather STOP people downloading the
stuff that is CAUSING problems everywhere !!!
I am still playing catchup with 5.0.5 and now there ase 'complaints'
on various forums that some package does
On 28.11.2005 15:35, Lester Caine wrote:
Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 28.11.2005 15:01, Lester Caine wrote:
Edin
You are missing my point - I'd rather STOP people downloading the
stuff that is CAUSING problems everywhere !!!
I am still playing catchup with 5.0.5 and now there ase 'complaints'
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:35:46 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lester Caine) wrote:
And please, when you say it has been broken yet again, explain
what do you mean by that.
Exactly what I have said - I'm still fixing 5.0.5 problems - now in
packages like PHPDocumentor - which no one else seems
Stanislav Malyshev schrieb:
OGBUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about what you
OGwould like. The : for example would work if mandatory whitespace would
OGbe introduced for the ternary BUT this is very very bad.
If my vote is counted (not that I asked for it :) then I
On 28 November 2005 09:50, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
BUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about
what you would like. The : for example would work if mandatory
whitespace would be introduced for the ternary BUT this is very
very bad.
If my vote is counted (not
OGWell, some people always keep throwing that already used symbols cannot
OGbe used for other purposes. :: is used for resolving class scope. Well,
Well, namespace scope and class scope are close enough so that this mixing
up would be bearable (and regarding class resolution and namespace
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 some
Can somebody help me stop the flood of income e-mails from PHP?
I've signed to the newsletter and, during the last two month, made many
attempts to unsubscribe - none works and I am getting 100's of e-mails from
you.
Please take me off the mailing list!
Israel Oulik Alpert
President CEO
Dnia Monday 28 of November 2005 12:13, Bastian Grupe napisał:
My primary concern is that 5.0.5 still consists some (in 5.1 resolved)
bugs and security holes.
Since it is unlikely to assume that people will move to 5.1.1
immediately IMO there should be a 5.0.6 with the current fixes.
From
Dmitry,
Can you send me the patch (or alternatively, where can I get it)? I'd like
to see how you did this.
My problem with :: is that you can't distinguish between calling a
function in a namespace and calling a static method, e.g.:
a::b()
This can mean either call static method b of class a
wow, I like foo~bar~obj-method()
I love ':' best, but if that really can't be, I must say '~' looks pretty
cool to me, cute even, like a little fishie ;)
anywaaay.. the best alternative to ':' i've seen so far, and i doubt it'll
cause problems with any existing operator.
- ron
Ford, Mike
Is ` (back quote) suitable for namespace separator? I cannot remember
just now if it was used somewhere.
2005/11/28, Ron Korving [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
wow, I like foo~bar~obj-method()
I love ':' best, but if that really can't be, I must say '~' looks pretty
cool to me, cute even, like a little
It's used for shell execution stuff.
Perl did something similar and quickly regretted it
On 11/28/05, Marian Kostadinov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is ` (back quote) suitable for namespace separator? I cannot remember
just now if it was used somewhere.
2005/11/28, Ron Korving [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, the problem is: '-' isn't used for classes. It's used for
objects! An object is an instance of a class. '~' Would be more
appropriate if there would be such a thing as an instance of a
namespace. But not for accessing the namespace itself. (In my opinion)
This is why I think it should
How about ;; then?
name1;;name2::myfunction();
PLEASE, MAKE IT STOP!
;; is already perfectly valid syntax:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ php5 -r 'define(name1,FALSE); class name2{function
myfunction(){ echo foo\n; }} name1;;name2::myfunction();'
foo
* Pre-existing operators are out of the question.
*
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
OGBUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about what you
OGwould like. The : for example would work if mandatory whitespace would
OGbe introduced for the ternary BUT this is very very bad.
If my vote is counted (not that I asked for it :) then I vote
Has there ever been a formal specification for what functionality namespaces
should provide within PHP?
I don't see how we can help if we don't know what your ideas for namespaces
are. I would be more than happy to start one so we can get a consensus on
what namespaces (if implemented) will look
I'm sorry if I say stupid stuff. My previous post actually was the first
post I've ever made to a newsgroup! Please bare with me while I adjust
to the etiquettes. :)
Anyway. Somebody has probably already suggested this. But how about:
namespace1}{Date::myfunction();
Hi,
It would be really nice for our php.net mirrors if the PHP Museum would
include some more past releases of PHP. The latest in the Museum are
4.3.9RC1 and 5.0.1, which means that the mirrors need to host all
version up from these, which is getting to be too many. Please update
the PHP Museum
Bob,
As I posted several months ago, I'm happy with just having classes in
namespaces. The idea for functions/constants came from Derick's meeting
notes page (http://php.net/~derick/meeting-notes.html) and these were listed
as requirements, though I doubt that they're really needed also.
ew
On 11/28/05, Bart de Boer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry if I say stupid stuff. My previous post actually was the first
post I've ever made to a newsgroup! Please bare with me while I adjust
to the etiquettes. :)
Anyway. Somebody has probably already suggested this. But how about:
namespace1}{Date::myfunction();
namespace2}{Date::Otherfunction();
For the same reason that ;; isn't doable (and worse actually).
echo The Baz constant in the Bar class of the Foo namespace is:
{Foo}{Bar::Baz}, or is it? Don'tcha hate tokens with multiple meanings?;
--
PHP Internals - PHP
Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
Hi,
It would be really nice for our php.net mirrors if the PHP Museum would
include some more past releases of PHP. The latest in the Museum are
4.3.9RC1 and 5.0.1, which means that the mirrors need to host all
version up from these, which is getting to be too many.
Why not simply have the museum rsync the distributions dir nightly?
It would then be a simple matter to remove older releases from cvs.
--Wez
On 11/28/05, Jacques Marneweck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
Hi,
It would be really nice for our php.net mirrors if the PHP Museum
Well, at least now we know that 'goto' is the way to go:
http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/05/11/28/1257216.shtml?tid=156tid=218
j/k of course :)
Ron
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hello Dmitry,
your patch wasn't complete. There are conflicts as soon as you have
subnamespaces or constsants.
marcus
Monday, November 28, 2005, 9:27:19 AM, you wrote:
Marcus,
You saw my patch that works with :: and doesn't break any scripts.
Dmitry.
-Original Message-
From:
MB your patch wasn't complete. There are conflicts as soon as you have
MBsubnamespaces or constsants.
You mean namespace contsants? I don't think they are needed. You can
always define utility class for them if you want. As for subnamespaces,
which I think also not necessary anyway, I don't
Hello Bastian,
id like to see '?php=' too.
marcus
Monday, November 28, 2005, 9:56:56 AM, you wrote:
What concerns me most is that ?php= does not work, regardless if short
tags will be disabled or not in php6. I currently use %= to counter
this, but I am most certainly *not* happy with
Hello Stanislav,
cool argument: as long as there are worse features we can add anything? :-))
best regards
marcus
Monday, November 28, 2005, 10:38:35 AM, you wrote:
IPCIt seems illogical to put a limit on jumping backwards just because
IPCsomeone mihgt make messy code. People are
MBbrains sooner or later. On the other hand \ has a clear visible split
MBmeaning. That is all the namespace operator must have besides not
Yes, except that it is used as escape character in a dozen of languages or
more and automatically recognized as such by any experienced programmer,
who
Hello Stanislav,
easy changing of behavior in classes of a namespace by only changing one
value for instance.
namespace Foo
{
const XYZ = 42;
class Bar
{
const = Foo::XYZ;
//...
}
class Baz
{
const = Foo::XYZ;
//...
}
}
marcus
Monday,
Can somebody help me stop the flood of income e-mails from PHP?
I've signed to the newsletter and, during the last two month, made many
attempts to unsubscribe - none works and I am getting 100's of e-mails from
you.
Please take me off the mailing list!
Israel Oulik Alpert
President CEO
Stas,
I agree that namespace constants are not needed, and are even problematic.
If I import a namespace that is divided among several files and I use a
constant from that namespace, __autoload won't let me find, and I won't know
where it is either. It's better to have a Config class under the
Hello Oliver,
just once again for the record: :: is *not* working.
marcus
Monday, November 28, 2005, 2:52:50 PM, you wrote:
Stanislav Malyshev schrieb:
OGBUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about what you
OGwould like. The : for example would work if mandatory
Why not simply have the museum rsync the distributions dir nightly?
It would then be a simple matter to remove older releases from cvs.
Fine with me.
Goba
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hello Marcus,
Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Stanislav,
easy changing of behavior in classes of a namespace by only changing one
value for instance.
namespace Foo
{
const XYZ = 42;
class Bar
{
const = Foo::XYZ;
MBcool argument: as long as there are worse features we can add anything?
:-))
No, as long as the feature has high abuse potential (hint: goto does) it
is better not to add it. Of course, it's not always possible, some
features are vital even if dangerous. But goto is nowhere near vital,
Hello Stanislav,
and don't forget that in languages like C you cannot take out the goto
because you would need to develop tons of compiler tools from scratch.
We are on the other end we don't have to decide if we can get the devil out
of php but simply decide not to let the devil in. If you
Namespace constants can be handy if you'd want to include some library
that uses predefined constants and classes that might conflict with
other classes and constants in the script.
namespace someLib {
include('huge_conflicting_library_that_I_dont_want_to_reverse_engineer');
}
Stanislav
MBWe are on the other end we don't have to decide if we can get the devil out
MBof php but simply decide not to let the devil in. If you really need goto
I agree with that.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ +972-3-6139665 ext.115
--
PHP
Hello Stanislav,
even if we wouldn't allow them the users would get conflicts in their
brains sooner or later. On the other hand \ has a clear visible split
meaning. That is all the namespace operator must have besides not
causing any conflict in the parser or human brains.
Btw, during paris
Hello Stanislav,
nothing really. I only think that it is easier to have the consts in
the namespace then in an extra class. I probably would call the class
'Config' or 'Setup' or alike then. But if i'd do that i'd be missing
features like static classes the php workaround would be 'abstract
Wez Furlong wrote:
Why not simply have the museum rsync the distributions dir nightly?
It would then be a simple matter to remove older releases from cvs.
Looks like we need to chat to Derick once he's back from his holiday,
seeing that ez1.php.net hosts that site.
Regards
--jm
--Wez
On
BdBuses predefined constants and classes that might conflict with other
BdBclasses and constants in the script.
Just a sec. For now, there's no constants outside of classes AFAIR?
Only define() and class constants. So your library won't refer to any
namespace constants, right? So how namespace
MB'Config' or 'Setup' or alike then. But if i'd do that i'd be missing
MBfeatures like static classes the php workaround would be 'abstract
MBfinal class'. Only:
Why should it be final? Extending it won't do any problem AFAIU.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
goto++
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 19:27 -0500, George Schlossnagle wrote:
me 3.
goto is good.
Wez Furlong wrote:
me also
On 11/27/05, Edin Kadribasic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
If it comes down to count of +1/-1 about this feature, I am +1 for
Hello Stanislav,
Monday, November 28, 2005, 9:10:55 PM, you wrote:
MB'Config' or 'Setup' or alike then. But if i'd do that i'd be missing
MBfeatures like static classes the php workaround would be 'abstract
MBfinal class'. Only:
Why should it be final? Extending it won't do any problem
MBIf it is not final you could derive the config class and then
MBinstanciate it. Static classes which nicely fit into configuration
MBstuff can never be instanciated.
I see you point, though I don't see any disaster if someone derives and
instantiates config class either.
--
Stanislav
Hi Dmitry,
Can you send/post your patch? I'm especially interested in seeing what you
did in zend_language_parser.y. Thanks.
Regards,
Jessie
Dmitry Stogov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Marcus,
It worked. :)
Even with nested classes.
However it didn't care
Marcus,
In my patch, you can define the class as private inside the namespace, so
it could only be derived by classes inside the same namespace
(using/instantiating outside will trigger an error). This might solve your
problem.
Regards,
Jessie
Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
Hello Dmitry,
featurismus: namespaces in namespaces *and* constants. But as i said even
without conflicts it causes trouble in your brain. Since the syntax would
not clearly differenciate the two.
regards
marcus
Monday, November 28, 2005, 9:10:04 PM, you wrote:
Hi Marcus,
It worked. :)
me too, i've asked for this before but i remember it being laughed away...
ron
Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Bastian,
id like to see '?php=' too.
marcus
Monday, November 28, 2005, 9:56:56 AM, you wrote:
What concerns me most is that
Hello Jessie,
yes and no. During 5.0 development i had private and protected inheritance
already and we voted against them. So i think we would vote against private
classes in namespaces as well.
regards
marcus
Monday, November 28, 2005, 9:19:32 PM, you wrote:
Marcus,
In my patch, you can
PHP syntax doesn't allow usage of _CLASS_NAME_ and _CONSTANT_ in the same
language context.
So, about what conflict are you talking?
$a = new A::B::C; - class
$a = A::B::C; - constant
What is the difference with current PHP code?
$a = new C;
$a = C;
Dmitry.
-Original Message-
Just as easy
namespace Foo
{
class Foo {
const XYZ = 42;
}
class Bar
{
const = Foo::XYZ;
//...
}
class Baz
{
const = Foo::XYZ;
//...
}
}
-Original Message-
From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday,
I thought that was the whole point of namespaces. That you can include
stuff without worries that things will conflict:
namespace name1 {
define(CONSTANT, Hello world.);
}
namespace name2 {
define(CONSTANT, Hello mars.);
}
Would produce seporate constants because they're defined in
I thought that was the whole point of namespaces. That you can include
stuff without worries that things will conflict:
namespace name1 {
define(CONSTANT, Hello world.);
}
namespace name2 {
define(CONSTANT, Hello mars.);
}
Would produce seporate constants because they're defined
Cool. If that won't work, I'd rather have ::: over \, please ;)
- David
Am 28.11.2005 um 22:52 schrieb Oliver Grätz:
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
Can someone explain why you wouldn't want private and/or protected classes
within a namespace? I imagine it would be due to problems with
implementation... thanks for an explanation.
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005
All,
After seeing Dmitry's patch, all he is allowing inside a module are import
statements and classes.
So, the question is, can we scrap both namespace constants and namespace
functions and just stay with classes (as was agreed on several months ago,
Andi himself agreeing to it)? This would
Bob,
It can't be an implementation issue, as this is already working in my patch
(in fact, one of the test cases tests this).
Regards,
Jessie
Bob Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can someone explain why you wouldn't want private and/or protected classes
To edit/maintain the annotated manual. And to help tidy up/maintain the bug
database.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Stanislav,
Monday, November 28, 2005, 9:10:55 PM, you wrote:
Why should it be final? Extending it won't do any problem AFAIU.
If it is not final you could derive the config class and then instanciate
it. Static classes which nicely fit into configuration stuff can
So, the question is, can we scrap both namespace constants and namespace
functions and just stay with classes (as was agreed on several months ago,
Andi himself agreeing to it)? This would make the patch smaller, simpler,
AND would allow me to reuse the :: operator (and there would be no
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 resigned and
Hello Jessie,
i already showed that dropping constants in namespaces leeds to static
classes or private classes. So we are just shifting here. Instead of doing
work that is worth nothing you should simply try to come up with a working
patch using a working separator which can clearly only be \.
Hello Markus,
Monday, November 28, 2005, 11:22:03 PM, you wrote:
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Stanislav,
Monday, November 28, 2005, 9:10:55 PM, you wrote:
Why should it be final? Extending it won't do any problem AFAIU.
If it is not final you could derive the config class and then
Hello Bob,
there is no technical reason against this. Bbtw there is no technical
reason against \ either. Infact \ is the only seperator symbol that doesn't
come along with technical problems that leed to conflicts or restrictions or
confusion or more of those. Apart from that last time we
Hello Sara,
Please explain what the difference is between nested classes, and
this type of namespacing?
If you scrapped namespace constants and functions, then all we have
left is classes. If it was looked at as nested classes, then we get
all the functionality with all the simplicity
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
Hello Marcus,
\ doesn't come along with confusion? Please, it's non-intuitive and looks
like an escaped identifier or a Windows path. I think there are only two
people who want \, you and someone else that I can't remember now.
::: works and it's understandable, the only bad thing is it's
I personally never use constants anyway. But at least functions and
variables should work with namespaces:
namespace name1 {
$var = 3;
function func();
}
From a language perspective those should exist only in that namespace.
I also think '\' as a seporator is nice. It has this nice
Have a fresh look :)
name1:::name2:::class::func();
name1::name2::class::func();
name1\name2\class::func();
I think there are way too many dots with ':::'.
Looking at this example I must say '\' looks cleanest. And it's the most
intuitive since namespaces are sort of like directories
Hi *!
I have tried to interpret the incoming statements from the last days
into one table. Sometimes it wasn't clear if some symbol was jst a
suggestions or if th poster liked, sometimes it wasn't clear if it meant
+1 or +2. Some suggestions like ~ came in very late and didn't get a
chance. So
Hello Oliver,
too bad i wasn't counted but hey that's statistics and that's how they
work :-)
Tuesday, November 29, 2005, 12:40:44 AM, you wrote:
Presumably Final Update:
Namespace Operators
No one answered my original email to create a design document, so I will do
it anyways and see what happens, if anything maybe I get a better
understanding and follow your advice to create my own patch since neither
existing patch looks fine to me (and it appears to core developers as
well) in its
Sara Golemon schrieb:
All the added functionality of namespaces without all the baggage.
+1
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
MBcool argument: as long as there are worse features we can add anything?
:-))
No, as long as the feature has high abuse potential (hint: goto does) it
is better not to add it. Of course, it's not always possible, some
features are vital even if dangerous. But goto
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 for whitespace magic with the need for
parentheses? you do notice you are running
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
