On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 06:33:40AM +, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to pick up the original discussion about this patch here again.
There have some updates on the github-pull. Maybe somebody could have a
look into this, please?
Le Wed, 2 Dec 2020 17:45:47 +,
"G. P. B." a écrit :
> The reason why this has been deferred is because of which semantics should
> be used for duplicate string keys.
['a' => 1, ...['a' => 2]] should be the same as ['a' => 1, 'a' => 2], I do not
see how any other way would be justifiable.
Am 02.12.2020 um 18:24 schrieb Florian Stascheck :
> I suggest to allow string keys to also be used in array literals:
>
> $template = ['created_at' => time(), 'is_admin' => 1];
> $db_rows = [
> ['name' => 'Alice', 'email' => 'al...@example.org', ...$template],
> ['name' => 'Bob', 'email' =>
>
> The reason why this has been deferred is because of which semantics should
> be used for duplicate string keys.
>
> Do we use the addition between two arrays semantics or the array_merge()
> semantics? See: https://3v4l.org/7QbWv
>
> As the previous RFC you linked initially wanted to use
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 10:46 AM G. P. B. wrote:
> The reason why this has been deferred is because of which semantics should
> be used for duplicate string keys.
>
> Do we use the addition between two arrays semantics or the array_merge()
> semantics? See: https://3v4l.org/7QbWv
array_merge is
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 17:24, Florian Stascheck
wrote:
> Hello!
>
> With PHP8 released and the named arguments RFC being implemented, there's
> now an inconsistency in how the spread operator works.
>
> Historically, the spread operator was first used in PHP 5.6 for arguments:
>
> function
Hello!
With PHP8 released and the named arguments RFC being implemented, there's
now an inconsistency in how the spread operator works.
Historically, the spread operator was first used in PHP 5.6 for arguments:
function php56($a, $b) {
return $a + $b;
}
$test = [1, 2];
php56(...$test) === 3;
Hi,
Working with UTF-8-encoded strings does not implies working with mb_string
functions or with code-point counts. Personnally, I work with standard string
functions, plus [Grapheme functions]
(https://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.intl.grapheme.php
Hi,
this is a follow-up of a bug I opened, and cmb suggested to continue
here: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=80166
Advantages:
1: Easier string manipulation:
If somebody does (as in my case) `preg_match_all()` with
PREG_OFFSET_CAPTURE, what will they probably use those returned
On 12/10/2017 22:32, Sara Golemon wrote:
answer, but (Foo::class.'::bar') may be what some would expect.
Ideally we'd have first-class references to functions.
-Sara
To chime in..
To my mind, references to functions is the holy grail so far as
beginning to clean up the entire ecosystem
On 12/10/2017 22:32, Sara Golemon wrote:
> Ideally we'd have first-class references to functions.
> -Sara
To chime in..
To my mind, references to functions is the holy grail so far as
beginning to clean up the entire ecosystem around function calls.
IMHO directly referencing
>
> I also thought about the same for functions, just to be even more
> consistent.
> my_func::function
I already had the exact same ideas, but didn't propose them yet.
$obj::foo::method could be used for instance methods, while
Obj::foo::method could be for static methods.
Regards, Niklas
I also thought about the same for functions, just to be even more
consistent.
my_func::function
On 12 Oct 2017 23:32, "Sara Golemon" wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Michael Döhler
> wrote:
> > I am open for any approach, but maybe we have to
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Michael Döhler wrote:
> I am open for any approach, but maybe we have to differentiate between class
> constants and method references?
>
Given the discussion we had around the namespace separator (and why we
DIDN'T go with ::), there may
Hi,
I am open for any approach, but maybe we have to differentiate between class
constants and method references?
Michael
> Am 12.10.2017 um 20:28 schrieb Mathias Grimm :
>
> The only problem with the @ symbol is the lack of consistency with the other
> constants
Hi,
Same i have in mind, for example: MyClass@myMethod
To make also some method call routing easier, e.g. in userland routers.
Transform the current approach:
$app->get("/foo", [MyClass::class, "myMethod"]);
To:
$app->get("/foo", MyClass@myMethod);
This will ease a lot, e.g. for
The only problem with the @ symbol is the lack of consistency with the
other constants class constants are also MyClass::MY_CONST, or
MyClass::class, so I think it makes sense to also be
MyClass::myMethod::method
On 12 October 2017 at 20:24, Michael Döhler wrote:
> Hi,
>
I would like to suggest a method constant that could be used the same way
we use the ::class one
I don't have a strong personal preference but it could be something like:
MyController::myActionMethod::method, no sure about the internals but it
would be consistent with the one for the class.
On 01/09/2016 13:12, Marco Pivetta wrote:
Yeah, and I would question:
1. why are you editing with a plaintext editor and searching stuff like
that? Are you in a super-hurry? Seems like a 0.001% scenario
2. why do you need to search for functions in a class? Just what kind of
monstrous
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Robert Williams
wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2016, at 11:49, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>
>
> I remember an argument that "function" is useful to "grep functions".
> This is true, but we have tokenizer and tokenizer does better job.
On Aug 31, 2016, at 11:49, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>
> I remember an argument that "function" is useful to "grep functions".
> This is true, but we have tokenizer and tokenizer does better job.
> e.g. It excludes functions inside comments.
>
> It may be time to consider
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Arvids Godjuks
wrote:
> As was said, this was debated a lot. Both sides had valid arguments, but
> this should not be taken lightly just because there is no "BC break". There
> is such thing as too much syntactic sugar, and PHP is one of
As was said, this was debated a lot. Both sides had valid arguments, but
this should not be taken lightly just because there is no "BC break". There
is such thing as too much syntactic sugar, and PHP is one of those, rare
these days, languages that keep options of doing the same thing low.
On
Hi, Thanks
Seems like is not going to happen very soon :)
In fact it is not broken, it's only a cosmetic nice to have.
Maybe in the future it will happen.
On 29 August 2016 at 14:06, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Hi Mathias
>
> 2016-08-29 15:03 GMT+02:00 Mathias Grimm
Hi Mathias
2016-08-29 15:03 GMT+02:00 Mathias Grimm :
> Hi,
> I have a suggestion, maybe many gave it before.
>
> My suggestion is the optional use of the keyword "function" inside classes,
> interfaces and traits.
> It would look much more clean while removing the
Hi,
I have a suggestion, maybe many gave it before.
My suggestion is the optional use of the keyword "function" inside classes,
interfaces and traits.
It would look much more clean while removing the redundancy.
Cheers,
Mathias Grimm
I've read some of the earlier discussion (not all, require sleep will read
more tomorrow).
To be clear I don't want to start a naming discussion again. If we have a
new name for $_POST or not isn't the main focus of this PR.
I want to allow PUT, PATCH and DELETE and handle them the same way as
+1 Yes, it is useful to have in the PHP core.
Possible names: $_BODY, $_DATA, $_INPUT, $_REQUEST
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Daniel Persson
wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I've not been a member for too long so I might have missed if this have
> been discussed earlier.
>
> But I've created a small PR to the basic request handling to support PUT,
> PATCH and DELETE.
>
>
Hi.
I've not been a member for too long so I might have missed if this have
been discussed earlier.
But I've created a small PR to the basic request handling to support PUT,
PATCH and DELETE.
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1519
Summary:
Added support for request methods with the smallest
Sorry for the ambiguity in my original message, and thanks to Tig for
PM-ing me about that.
To clarify, I support the syntax for:
echo function(var)[0];
and I believe this syntax:
$tmp = getimagesize('./path/to/image');
echo $tmp[1];
to be awkward and inconvenient. Furthermore, it feels
Hi all,
2010/6/5 Felipe Pena felipe...@gmail.com
Hi!
2010/6/4 Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com
Hi!
function call chaining (f()() if f() returns function), and array
dereferencing (f()[0]) - (Stas)
I did patch for f()() - it's referenced at
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/fcallfcall -
I don't understand what is holding PHP back from having this syntax.
Tig said:
?
$tmp = getimagesize('./path/to/image');
echo $tmp[1];
?
The need to assign the trivial variable $tmp first is completely arbitrary.
Is it not a design goal somewhere that languages should allow the greatest
degree
Hi!
2010/6/4 Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com
Hi!
function call chaining (f()() if f() returns function), and array
dereferencing (f()[0]) - (Stas)
I did patch for f()() - it's referenced at
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/fcallfcall - but not for f()[] - didn't have time
for that yet.
Hi
Why not something more generic.
Someone could think of a ValueNode.
Then it could be use for object, array, any primitive type ...
I will take the ValueNode as a non terminal grammar node.
So first we could do that:
ValueNode-method();
ValueNode::sMethod();
ValueNode[];
foo(ValueNode);
On 4 June 2010 08:18, mathieu.suen mathieu.s...@easyflirt.com wrote:
Hi
Why not something more generic.
Someone could think of a ValueNode.
Then it could be use for object, array, any primitive type ...
I will take the ValueNode as a non terminal grammar node.
So first we could do that:
On 06/04/2010 10:00 AM, Richard Quadling wrote:
On 4 June 2010 08:18, mathieu.suenmathieu.s...@easyflirt.com wrote:
Hi
Why not something more generic.
Someone could think of a ValueNode.
Then it could be use for object, array, any primitive type ...
I will take the ValueNode as a non
Would be at all possible to implement this kind of shortcut?
echo function(var)[0];
For example, to print the height of an image:
?
echo getimagesize('./path/to/image')[1];
?
Sure, if you want more than one of the returned array points, this
would not be very efficient, however when you do
Hi Tig
2010/6/4 Tig tigger...@gmail.com:
Would be at all possible to implement this kind of shortcut?
Its called array-dereferencing and it was proposed countless times,
including by myself. There is an RFC for this[1] and it was planned on
the old PHP6 todo at the PDT[2].
[1]
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen ka...@php.net wrote:
Hi Tig
2010/6/4 Tig tigger...@gmail.com:
Would be at all possible to implement this kind of shortcut?
Its called array-dereferencing and it was proposed countless times,
including by myself. There is an RFC for
Hi,
Has anyone attempted a patch for this? Or does anyone have an idea of
the feasibility? Is it technically possible in a good/clean way?
- Jon
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Tig tigger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen ka...@php.net
wrote:
Hi Tig
Hi,
I've always wondered the same thing too. Would be a nice improvement.
- Jon
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Tig tigger...@gmail.com wrote:
Would be at all possible to implement this kind of shortcut?
echo function(var)[0];
For example, to print the height of an image:
?
echo
2010/6/4 Tig tigger...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen ka...@php.net wrote:
So does this mean array-dereferencing was original declined but still
a possible for PHP 6?
That is how I'm reading it, but just want to make sure.
I belive its because when its been
Hi!
function call chaining (f()() if f() returns function), and array
dereferencing (f()[0]) - (Stas)
I did patch for f()() - it's referenced at
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/fcallfcall - but not for f()[] - didn't have
time for that yet.
It should not be too hard to do, one just has to be
On 22.11.2009, at 03:13, D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 21.11.2009, at 22:29, Dante Lorenso wrote:
I would love to restate my recommendation for the function filled.
Which is the opposite of empty. Filled would accept a variable
number of arguments and return the first
On 21.11.2009, at 06:12, Alban wrote:
This is not a big problem but if a solution exists, this would be so
cool ! Especialy when we have to check existance of twenty or more key in
array. Code would be be lighter and clear.
Since i use PHP, I always have in my 'common function file' a
Le Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:48:10 +0100, Lukas Kahwe Smith a écrit :
On 21.11.2009, at 06:12, Alban wrote:
This is not a big problem but if a solution exists, this would be so
cool ! Especialy when we have to check existance of twenty or more key
in array. Code would be be lighter and clear.
Alban wrote:
Le Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:48:10 +0100, Lukas Kahwe Smith a écrit :
On 21.11.2009, at 06:12, Alban wrote:
This is not a big problem but if a solution exists, this would be so
cool ! Especialy when we have to check existance of twenty or more key
in array. Code would be be lighter
More interesting behaviors to dig are there:
variable = value1 ?? value2;
variable = value0 ? value4 : value1 ?? value2;
or a la javascript
variable = value1 || value2;
Best,
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
Alban wrote:
Le Sat, 21 Nov 2009
I would love to restate my recommendation for the function filled.
Which is the opposite of empty. Filled would accept a variable
number of arguments and return the first where empty evaluates as
false.
Like empty, filled would not throw notices for undefined variables.
This is not the same as
On 21.11.2009, at 22:29, Dante Lorenso wrote:
I would love to restate my recommendation for the function filled.
Which is the opposite of empty. Filled would accept a variable
number of arguments and return the first where empty evaluates as
false.
Like empty, filled would not throw
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 21.11.2009, at 22:29, Dante Lorenso wrote:
I would love to restate my recommendation for the function filled.
Which is the opposite of empty. Filled would accept a variable
number of arguments and return the first where empty evaluates as
false.
Like empty, filled
Le Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:21:18 -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf a écrit :
The ternary isn't meant to solve the isset thing you are talking about.
It is simply a shortcut to normal ternary operations. The most common
case where you don't know if a variable is set is on the initial input
via $_GET or
Alban wrote:
Le Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:21:18 -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf a écrit :
The ternary isn't meant to solve the isset thing you are talking about.
It is simply a shortcut to normal ternary operations. The most common
case where you don't know if a variable is set is on the initial input
via
Le Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:52:30 -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf a écrit :
Or better yet, have your filter function return false if the variable
doesn't exist and use the ternary to set the default. You can do it all
in a single step then.
$var = filter_func($_GET,'foo')?:42;
Simple and clean.
hi all,
Since the new conditionnal operator ternary was introduced in php 5.3,
I'm little confuse about it.
The documentations says :
Since PHP 5.3, it is possible to leave out the middle part of the ternary
operator. Expression expr1 ?: expr3 returns expr1 if expr1 evaluates to
TRUE, and
On Friday 20 November 2009 11:12:29 pm Alban wrote:
This is not a big problem but if a solution exists, this would be so
cool ! Especialy when we have to check existance of twenty or more key in
array. Code would be be lighter and clear.
I cannot comment on the rest of your post right now,
Le Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:28:39 -0600, Larry Garfield a écrit :
On Friday 20 November 2009 11:12:29 pm Alban wrote:
This is not a big problem but if a solution exists, this would be so
cool ! Especialy when we have to check existance of twenty or more key
in array. Code would be be lighter and
2009/5/16 Jingcheng Zhang dio...@gmail.com:
Maybe I have not found its detailed description on PHP's official manual,
but PHP does allow static field inheritance. However there is a little
difference between dynamic field inheritance and static field inheritance,
as the following codes shows:
Hello all,
Maybe I have not found its detailed description on PHP's official manual,
but PHP does allow static field inheritance. However there is a little
difference between dynamic field inheritance and static field inheritance,
as the following codes shows:
?php
class static_a {
public
Guilherme Blanco wrote:
Hm...
Actually at that time I was not able to reproduce the limit, and I
wrote a fix that worked well and reduced the number of nest calls.
Maybe the guy that notified me was using it. Here is the changeset I
did to fix the issue:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Guilherme Blanco wrote:
Yeah... recursion depth.
Sorry, I wrongly typed it.
I think it may be cleaner now...
Well, PHP itself doesn't protect against this, but my guess is that you
have Xdebug running. Xdebug limits to 100 levels by default in order to
prevent
There is no nesting limit, it recurses until it runs out of memory.
Derick was saying that XDebug will add one, but other than that there
isn't any.
dev/php53/sapi/cli/php -r 'function m($m) { echo ++$m . ; m($m); }
m(0); '
I ran that and I got bored when it got to 750,000 levels deep.
Scott
Hm...
Actually at that time I was not able to reproduce the limit, and I
wrote a fix that worked well and reduced the number of nest calls.
Maybe the guy that notified me was using it. Here is the changeset I
did to fix the issue: http://trac.phpdoctrine.org/changeset/4397
But right now I'll
Derick,
I do not have xdebug installed here.
That's why I thought it was something that could be changed, since
it's something too specific and afaik used only by xdebug.
Regards,
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Guilherme Blanco
Hi ML,
Short version: Increase the default max_input_nesting_level from 100
to something 150.
Extended version:
I am working on a Compiler written for PHP. Before you criticize me,
let me explain the entire situation.
I work for Doctrine project. Currently we're refactoring the DQL
(Doctrine
Hi!
Currently I'm working on the compiler, which has this BNF:
http://trac.doctrine-project.org/browser/trunk/query-language.txt
I've done a lot of optimizations to be able to not touch the default
nesting input level, but doing that I added a lot of restrictions that
now are my bottlenecks.
Each grammar rule may forward calls and subsequent things to build itself.
So, ConditionalExpression may forward a call and later call itself
again and again, etc.
At last, the number of nested function calls can easily reach 100.
If you need an example... I can spend some time on it to
Hi,
He means recursion depth, not input nesting depth. 5.3 had a proposed fast
function call algorithm which would avoid the stack limit and allow deeper
recursion, was this accepted and how does it affect the limit of 100 nested
calls?
Regards,
Stan Vassilev
Hi!
Currently I'm working
Yeah... recursion depth.
Sorry, I wrongly typed it.
I think it may be cleaner now...
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Stan Vassilev | FM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
He means recursion depth, not input nesting depth. 5.3 had a proposed fast
function call algorithm which would avoid the
Hi there,
I have a suggestion regarding get_headers, however I do not have a
knowledge of C with which to provide a patch.
The function get_headers is, as most will know, used to retrieve headers
generated by an HTTP request. The primary parameter to this, string
$url, is provided
On Thursday 27 December 2007, Hans Moog wrote:
In my oppinion namespaces should only be an additional way of
structering php elements and using short names again without loosing the
abilitiy to avoid naming conflicts with 3rd party libraries. Since
libraries are generally class libraries and
Within the last few days i read some of the posts concerning the new
namespace implementation and it's alleged problems. And ... I really
have to say, that I do not understand whats the problem with namespaces
at all. Instead, I suppose that many lost sight of the original goal of
namespaces.
Within the last few days i read some of the posts concerning the new
namespace implementation and it's alleged problems. And ... I really
have to say, that I do not understand whats the problem with namespaces
at all. Instead, I suppose that many lost sight of the original goal of
namespaces.
-
From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: ג 10 יולי 2007 23:51
To: Tzachi Tager
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Suggestion for fixing Bug #40928
/en-us/ntcmds_shelloverview.mspx?mfr=true , quoting: You can use most
characters as variable values, including
/en-us/ntcmds_shelloverview.mspx?mfr=true , quoting: You can use most
characters as variable values, including white space. If you use the
special characters , , |, , or ^, you must precede them with the
escape character (^) or quotation marks. - So all special characters
will be replaced with
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 01:29:31 +0300, Tzachi Tager wrote:
Hi,
I was looking at Bug #40928 - escapeshellarg() does not quote percent
(%) correctly for cmd.exe.
This bug seems to be because escapeshellarg() in Windows replaces '%'
and '' with spaces, while assuming there isn't a real
Hi,
I was looking at Bug #40928 - escapeshellarg() does not quote percent
(%) correctly for cmd.exe.
This bug seems to be because escapeshellarg() in Windows replaces '%'
and '' with spaces, while assuming there isn't a real escaping method
for command line in Windows. Therefore I'm guessing no
On 3/3/07, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Arnold,
I added glob directory stream support. Now you can do two things:
$d1 = new DirectoryIterator(glob://mydir/*);
$d2 = new DirectoryIterator(mydir/*, DirectoryIterator::USE_GLOB);
count() stuff will follow.
I'm not sure it is
On 3/4/07, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Pierre,
Sunday, March 4, 2007, 6:22:03 PM, you wrote:
To make this long story short, I do not understand the reason behind a
glob:// stream wrapper. It makes no sense. But yes, we need a better
glob support in PHP. Many extensions
Hi Marcus,
On 3/4/07, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Damn hell i am just sick of getting complaints without even understanding
the matters. As you wrote you don't understand. So just stay calm. Damn it!
I don'T see it as personal. It is just fucking stupid that you hook onto
stuff
Hello Arnold,
a bunch of new stuff based on your suggestions will be added to 5.2.2.
I also added more comments below.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 1:36:21 AM, you wrote:
Thanks for your response. I've put some new comments below.
SplFileInfo:
- Add parameter $flags to constructor. The
Hello Arnold,
I added glob directory stream support. Now you can do two things:
$d1 = new DirectoryIterator(glob://mydir/*);
$d2 = new DirectoryIterator(mydir/*, DirectoryIterator::USE_GLOB);
count() stuff will follow.
Best regards,
Marcus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
From: Arnold Daniels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
DirectoryIteratorRecursive:
- Add flag DIRS_ONLY for the constructor, to only loop through
directories
This is achieved by a FilterIterator: ParentIterator
Yes but if you want to loop recursively through the directories,
Hi,
I've got a few feature suggestions for SplFileInfo and
DirectoryIteratorRecursive. I'm creating yet another php file manager.
I've noticed that I needed to add quite some code to make it act the way
gnome nautilus does. I believe these feature would be a good addition.
SplFileInfo:
-
Hello Arnold,
some interesting ideas indeed. See my comments below.
best regards
marcus
Monday, February 26, 2007, 8:48:32 PM, you wrote:
Hi,
I've got a few feature suggestions for SplFileInfo and
DirectoryIteratorRecursive. I'm creating yet another php file manager.
I've noticed that
Hi again,
Thanks for your response. I've put some new comments below.
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Arnold,
some interesting ideas indeed. See my comments below.
best regards
marcus
Monday, February 26, 2007, 8:48:32 PM, you wrote:
Hi,
I've got a few feature suggestions for
[Taking this back on-list, as it's my final answer.]
On Wed, February 14, 2007 5:30 pm, Christian Schneider wrote:
Richard Lynch wrote:
But the code that checks for E_NOTICE also has to be altered to check
for E_STRICT...
How many applications use error handlers. And how many of them rely
on
On Thu, February 8, 2007 7:43 pm, Christian Schneider wrote:
Guilherme Blanco wrote:
Brian,I am sorry about the message indentation... Seems
PHP-Internals
list does not like M$ Live(r) Mail!
Please use plain text mail as your messages are a PITA to read,
thanks.
Or very easy to read, as
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Guilherme Blanco wrote:
Christian Schneider wrote:
Please use plain text mail as your messages are a PITA to read, thanks.
I changed the email to send/recieve messages. Hotmail simply doesn't
accept plain text.
hotmail also fucks up threading :I
regards,
Derick
--
Hello PHP maintainers,During this week, I spoke with Sara Golemon about the
possibility to change one current behavior of PHP.My first suggestion, as you
can see in my blog post: http://blog.bisna.com/archives/32#comments was a new
function called register_superglobal.While talking with her, I
Well, this was a little hard to read, but, let me see if I understand
one thing. You would have PHP look in the local scope and then also in
the global scope? If so, I would never support that idea. I remember
an email from Rasmus about why PHP's scoping is the way it is.
Something to do
PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: internals@lists.php.net Subject: Re:
[PHP-DEV] Suggestion: global variables being accessed in local scope Well,
this was a little hard to read, but, let me see if I understand one thing.
You would have PHP look in the local scope and then also
Guilherme Blanco wrote:
Brian,I am sorry about the message indentation... Seems PHP-Internals
list does not like M$ Live(r) Mail!
Please use plain text mail as your messages are a PITA to read, thanks.
you can see, the only change needed is in a throw-able error (Undefined
variable), which
Christian Schneider wrote:
Please use plain text mail as your messages are a PITA to read, thanks.
I changed the email to send/recieve messages. Hotmail simply doesn't
accept plain text.
You didn't grasp two of the major PHP features (not bugs!):
1. Every variable you access inside a
Hi there,
I don't know if this is the place to do it, but anyway. I have a suggestion
for a new function that PHP could have:
It will be similar to fopen, but instead of actually loading the URL, it
starts loading the page, then once PHP knows that it's started loading, it
will stop it before
http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.get-headers.php
- David
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Hemelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:55 PM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Suggestion: If URL Loads Initially, then stop
Hi there,
I
use HEAD request
On 4/13/05, Ryan Hemelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there,
I don't know if this is the place to do it, but anyway. I have a suggestion
for a new function that PHP could have:
It will be similar to fopen, but instead of actually loading the URL, it
starts loading the
Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
How about anyempty($var1, $var2, $var3, ...) ?
Jevon
- Original Message -
From: Ron Korving [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] suggestion: empty
You're right, the only right way would be to introduce a new function like
the isval() I suggested in my reply to Jevon.
Ron
Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is a big difference between isset() and empty() and it was discussed
a lot in the past.
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo