hi Stas,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> I disagree. I've always stated small, self-contained features that do
> not involve infrastructure changes may be OK, and the RFC explicitly
> says so too.
Yes, and trivial or self contained and can be discussed on a case by
case
On 2012-06-08 08:18, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 12:53 -0700, Adi Mutu wrote:
Ok Johannes, thanks for the answer. I'll try to look deeper.
I basically just wanted to know what happens when you concatenate two
strings? what emalloc/efree happens.
This depends. As always. As s
I feel that for PHP to incorporate some of the convenience that Python offers
is a good particularly with respect to attracting the upcoming generation. PHP
needs an injection of new coolness to attract and captivate the imagination of
young college-age people who are being exposed to Python as
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ángel González wrote:
> On 11/06/12 23:12, Tom Boutell wrote:
>> Can you really use setjmp and longjmp in that way safely? I thought it
>> was only safe to longjmp "back," not "forward" - you can use them to
>> fake exception support but that's it because you'll s
On 11/06/12 23:12, Tom Boutell wrote:
> Can you really use setjmp and longjmp in that way safely? I thought it
> was only safe to longjmp "back," not "forward" - you can use them to
> fake exception support but that's it because you'll smash the stack
> otherwise. Something like that...
My first re
Hi!
> That being said, I am really not in favor of having it yet in 5.4. For
> two reasons, first 5.4 is bugs fixes only, no new feature. The second
I disagree. I've always stated small, self-contained features that do
not involve infrastructure changes may be OK, and the RFC explicitly
says so t
I've submitted a Pull Request for this feature. I'll whip up an RFC
for it tonight and propose it.
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/105
Thanks,
Anthony
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Pierre,
>
>> I am all for having it in hash as well. But yes, it requires more
Pierre,
> I am all for having it in hash as well. But yes, it requires more work
> that may need additional RFC (changing the API to allow more options
> need discussions).
What options are needed? The API refactoring that I have done has all
been to static functions, and extracting methods from
hi Anthony,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>> I noticed that yesterday a patch was committed to trunk to add PBKDF2
>>> support to the OpenSSL extension. I also noted that in the commit
>>> message, the author indicated that he would have rather added it to
>>> the has
Derick,
>> I noticed that yesterday a patch was committed to trunk to add PBKDF2
>> support to the OpenSSL extension. I also noted that in the commit
>> message, the author indicated that he would have rather added it to
>> the hash extension, but wasn't able to.
>
> Why wasn't he been able to?
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I noticed that yesterday a patch was committed to trunk to add PBKDF2
> support to the OpenSSL extension. I also noted that in the commit
> message, the author indicated that he would have rather added it to
> the hash extension, but w
Hello all,
I noticed that yesterday a patch was committed to trunk to add PBKDF2
support to the OpenSSL extension. I also noted that in the commit
message, the author indicated that he would have rather added it to
the hash extension, but wasn't able to.
I had added a patch back in January for t
12 matches
Mail list logo
