On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Marcus Börger wrote:
>At 19:01 04.04.2003, Sterling Hughes wrote:
>>sterlingFri Apr 4 12:01:10 2003 EDT
>>
>> Modified files:
>> /php4 CODING_STANDARDS
>> Log:
>> both these entries are bad, and were never agreed upon.
>> assert() usage is a c
At 19:01 04.04.2003, Sterling Hughes wrote:
sterlingFri Apr 4 12:01:10 2003 EDT
Modified files:
/php4 CODING_STANDARDS
Log:
both these entries are bad, and were never agreed upon.
assert() usage is a controversial concept at best.
docref() is something quite a
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Sterling Hughes wrote:
>
> > I'd rather see people use what they like -- so long as they stay
> consistent
> > to the coding of the style that they are currently editing. By
> specializing
> > to the PHP macro's you limit an extensions usage to
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> I'd rather see people use what they like -- so long as they stay consistent
> to the coding of the style that they are currently editing. By specializing
> to the PHP macro's you limit an extensions usage to only PHP in many ways.
>
> Sure, there is
Quoting "Thies C. Arntzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 12:49:04AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> >
> > > yohgaki Sun Sep 8 18:38:57 2002 EDT
> > >
> > > Modified files:
> > > /php4 CODING_STANDARDS
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> PHP_* macros are mostly used, but ZEND_* macros are preffered, IMHO.
IMO it is not.
> I asked about PHP_* & ZEND_* macro issue long time ago when Zend
> became BSD style license. As a result of discussion, I added following
> entry.
I can not remember
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 12:49:04AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>
> > yohgaki Sun Sep 8 18:38:57 2002 EDT
> >
> > Modified files:
> > /php4 CODING_STANDARDS
> > Log:
> > It seems we're better to mention about mi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>
>
>>yohgaki Sun Sep 8 18:38:57 2002 EDT
>>
>> Modified files:
>>/php4 CODING_STANDARDS
>> Log:
>> It seems we're better to mention about missing functions.
>> PHP_FUNCTION -> ZEND_FUNCT
Jon Parise wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 11:56:39PM +0100, James Cox wrote:
>
>
>>yasuo, i really don't mean to sound nasty, or anything like this... but if
>>you want to check in text like this, please send it via php-dev for
>>review... this just doesn't make any sense.
>>
>>What you wanted
> I just committed a reworded version. I'm sorry I didn't catch your
> response first, though, or I would have opened it up to further
> critique.
>
Jon, i wouldn't worry about it too much... (yours made more sense than mine
:)) but it was just something that had niggled me over the last few
m
On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 11:56:39PM +0100, James Cox wrote:
> yasuo, i really don't mean to sound nasty, or anything like this... but if
> you want to check in text like this, please send it via php-dev for
> review... this just doesn't make any sense.
>
> What you wanted to say is:
>
> [10] Do
> +[10] Do no define that is not available. For instance, if
> library available is
> + missing function(s), do not define function nor raise error
> for missing
> + function(s).
> +
yasuo, i really don't mean to sound nasty, or anything like this... but if
you want to check in text lik
On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 22:38:57 -
"Yasuo Ohgaki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yohgaki Sun Sep 8 18:38:57 2002 EDT
>
> Modified files:
> /php4 CODING_STANDARDS
> Log:
> It seems we're better to mention about missing functions.
> PHP_FUNCTION -> ZEND_F
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> yohgaki Sun Sep 8 18:38:57 2002 EDT
>
> Modified files:
> /php4 CODING_STANDARDS
> Log:
> It seems we're better to mention about missing functions.
> PHP_FUNCTION -> ZEND_FUNCTION
erm, where was this decided
14 matches
Mail list logo
