Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
Please revert.
There is no need.
Derick has been changed it w/o discussion.
Nice joke :)
Don't you forget I've posted I'll change it?
I get reply only from you, though. Old code was
bogus as everyone
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
There is no need.
Derick has been changed it w/o discussion.
Nice joke :)
Don't you forget I've posted I'll change it?
I get reply only from you, though. Old code was
bogus
Derick Rethans wrote:
Your patch made impossible to turn off implicit
flushing at all. I know you've modified code at very
late stage of discussion to fix it, even if I've
mentioned the problem number of times.
That is not even true, you always could disable that hardcoded setting
by passing
-Original Message-
From: Zeev Suraski [mailto:zeev;zend.com]
Sent: 28 October 2002 02:06
Thank you for the detailed explanation, I'm sure everybody
understands it now.
Let's go for the voting phase. I vote we keep PHP-CLI with
implicit_flush
on by default.
+1
Cheers!
Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 15:29 25/10/2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Are you going to set output_buffering=Off by default, too?
Since the obscurity still exists with output buffers.
It's even worse with broken output buffer function.
Huh? It IS off by default.
Of course I know it is off by
Zeev Suraski wrote:
Thank you for the detailed explanation, I'm sure everybody understands
it now.
Let's go for the voting phase. I vote we keep PHP-CLI with
implicit_flush on by default. You vote against.
Of course :)
I vote -1 for it.
It does not make sense to have it on by default
which
+1 FLUSH
--
Maxim Maletsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.PHPBeginner.com // PHP for Beginners
www.maxim.cx // my Home
// my Wish List: ( Get me something! )
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/registry/2IXE7SMI5EDI3
Zeev Suraski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote... :
Thank you for the detailed
+1 to keep PHP-CLI with implicit_flush.
Ilia
On October 27, 2002 09:05 pm, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Thank you for the detailed explanation, I'm sure everybody understands it
now.
Let's go for the voting phase. I vote we keep PHP-CLI with implicit_flush
on by default. You vote against.
Can we
At 07:38 PM 10/28/02 +0900, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
BTW, we should better to have a little different ini
selection for CLI.
For instance,
/etc/phprc or php.ini
~/.phprc or php.ini
which are standard locations of rc files under UNIX
like systems.
This I can agree with. I would prefer
Yasuo, I think the picture is pretty clear now. There were no votes in
favour of keeping it off, and at least half a dozen votes to keep it
on. While I don't particularly like these ad-hoc votes, it appeared to be
the only way to demonstrate to you that in this discussion, people are
simply
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Yasuo, I think the picture is pretty clear now. There were no votes in
favour of keeping it off, and at least half a dozen votes to keep it
on. While I don't particularly like these ad-hoc votes, it appeared to be
the only way to demonstrate to
Zeev Suraski wrote:
Please revert.
There is no need.
Derick has been changed it w/o discussion.
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
hello,
I just remember the subject :-
[PHP-DEV] I hope this is the last email about this :)
sorry, cannot resist to do it :-)
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
Please revert.
There is no need.
Derick has been changed it w/o discussion.
Nice joke :)
Derick
--
---
Derick Rethans
Thank you for the detailed explanation, I'm sure everybody understands it now.
Let's go for the voting phase. I vote we keep PHP-CLI with implicit_flush
on by default. You vote against.
Can we get some other votes now (not opinions, everything was already said
a dozen times, just votes to
At 15:29 25/10/2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Are you going to set output_buffering=Off by default, too?
Since the obscurity still exists with output buffers.
It's even worse with broken output buffer function.
Huh? It IS off by default.
BTW, I don't object to have output_buffering=Off by default
I vote we leave it on.
Chris
Zeev Suraski wrote:
Thank you for the detailed explanation, I'm sure everybody understands
it now.
Let's go for the voting phase. I vote we keep PHP-CLI with
implicit_flush on by default. You vote against.
Can we get some other votes now (not opinions,
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Let's go for the voting phase. I vote we keep PHP-CLI with implicit_flush
on by default. You vote against.
Can we get some other votes now (not opinions, everything was already said
a dozen times, just votes to get this over with).
Leave it on by
That was +1 for changing it to off. :)
On Sunday, October 27, 2002, at 09:37 PM, George Schlossnagle wrote:
+1 unless it is set as an INI_ANY, then +0.
George
On Sunday, October 27, 2002, at 09:05 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Thank you for the detailed explanation, I'm sure everybody understands
At 18:37 27/10/2002, George Schlossnagle wrote:
+1 unless it is set as an INI_ANY, then +0.
It's already INI_ANY...
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Indeed it appears to be... +0 then. :)
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 07:44 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 18:37 27/10/2002, George Schlossnagle wrote:
+1 unless it is set as an INI_ANY, then +0.
It's already INI_ANY...
-- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe,
Zeev Suraski writes:
I vote we keep PHP-CLI with implicit_flush
on by default.
Ditto.
Regards
Mike Robinson
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Let's go for the voting phase. I vote we keep PHP-CLI with
implicit_flush
on by default. You vote against.
I'm with Zeev on this one.
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 28/10/02, Zeev Suraski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you for the detailed explanation, I'm sure everybody understands it now.
Let's go for the voting phase. I vote we keep PHP-CLI with implicit_flush
on by default.
+1
--Wez.
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To
At 09:57 PM 10/27/2002 -0500, Mike Robinson wrote:
Zeev Suraski writes:
I vote we keep PHP-CLI with implicit_flush
on by default.
Ditto.
Make that Ditto * 2.
Andi
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
At 06:05 PM 10/27/02 -0800, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Thank you for the detailed explanation, I'm sure everybody understands it now.
I vote we keep PHP-CLI with implicit_flush on by default.
+1
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Thank you for the detailed explanation, I'm sure everybody understands it now.
Let's go for the voting phase. I vote we keep PHP-CLI with implicit_flush
on by default. You vote against.
+1 to keep implicit_flush enabled.
Derick
--
Zeev Suraski wrote:
You print something, it doesn't print out. How is it trivial to solve
this? If you happen to know that there's IO buffering and that there's
a function called flush() then maybe it trivial, but then there are the
other million users who don't. Hence the idea of setting
Mike Ford wrote:
BTW, real language (i.e. not shell) don't flush. Please let me
know if there is real language that do automatic flushing by
default.
But PHP-CLI *is* a shell-scripting language, and therefore should behave
like one. Other flavours of PHP aren't, and shouldn't. QED.
You
Mike,
It seems my last mail is a bit too negative. Sorry.
Mike Ford wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Yasuo Ohgaki [mailto:yohgaki;ohgaki.net]
Sent: 24 October 2002 07:42
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Alan Knowles
Alan Knowles wrote:
Im +1 for reverting the patch - (for what it's worth)
Yasuo,
can you please stop this discussion now, it's not going to change. It
only wastes time which we could have spend on numerous other things for
PHP, such as fixing bugs and writing tests for the test system.
Derick
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Mike,
It seems my last
At 09:15 25/10/2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
You print something, it doesn't print out. How is it trivial to solve
this? If you happen to know that there's IO buffering and that there's a
function called flush() then maybe it trivial, but then there are the
other million
Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 09:15 25/10/2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
You print something, it doesn't print out. How is it trivial to
solve this? If you happen to know that there's IO buffering and that
there's a function called flush() then maybe it trivial, but then
there
Derick Rethans wrote:
Yasuo,
can you please stop this discussion now, it's not going to change. It
only wastes time which we could have spend on numerous other things for
PHP, such as fixing bugs and writing tests for the test system.
I don't want to waste my time too. I just trying to make
I need to add a little.
Zeev Suraski wrote:
If we are argue about difficulty of flushing,
We're not. We're arguing about the obscurity of the problem.
Are you going to set output_buffering=Off by default, too?
Since the obscurity still exists with output buffers.
It's even worse with
At 01:22 26-10-2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Makefile.global
- You insisted it should be INI independent without fixing
dependency issue
Some settings cannot be hardcoded. Granted.
Some we may want to hardcode for run-tests.php. Granted.
php.ini-dist is not the one to do it with. It's
Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
*SNIP*
If there should be something to fix, via an ini file, than let's
use php.ini-test.
No objection from me, of course.
It's even better since we don't care about changes in php.ini-dist.
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To
Alan Knowles wrote:
Im +1 for reverting the patch - (for what it's worth)
Why?
Well - most 'average' (and below) PHP programmers when attempting to do
CLI programming, will get a serious WTF reaction from wondering why when
they 'echo' stuff, it doesnt appear. The more advanced Users can
At 00:27 24-10-2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
PS: If you would like to write INI independent scripts, I
suggest you to use php.ini-recommended at least. You don't/
didn't know phps crashing and make test does not work well with
php.ini-recommended, nonetheless, you're insisting there is no
problems.
At 02:51 24-10-2002, Alan Knowles wrote:
Im +1 for reverting the patch - (for what it's worth)
Why?
Well - most 'average' (and below) PHP programmers when attempting to do
CLI programming, will get a serious WTF reaction from wondering why when
they 'echo' stuff, it doesnt appear. The more
At 08:42 24-10-2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
I think this kind of code will be taught at the first
class of programming course. (I could be wrong,
since I don't know where people learned programming ;)
Why do you assume people learned programming?
I think Rasmus has made the case for PHP to be a
Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
At 08:42 24-10-2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
I think this kind of code will be taught at the first
class of programming course. (I could be wrong,
since I don't know where people learned programming ;)
Why do you assume people learned programming?
I think Rasmus has made
Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
At 00:27 24-10-2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
PS: If you would like to write INI independent scripts, I
suggest you to use php.ini-recommended at least. You don't/
didn't know phps crashing and make test does not work well with
php.ini-recommended, nonetheless, you're
At 16:42 10/24/2002 +0900, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
At 08:42 24-10-2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
I think this kind of code will be taught at the first
class of programming course. (I could be wrong,
since I don't know where people learned programming ;)
Why do you assume people
Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
At 02:51 24-10-2002, Alan Knowles wrote:
Im +1 for reverting the patch - (for what it's worth)
Why?
Well - most 'average' (and below) PHP programmers when attempting to
do CLI programming, will get a serious WTF reaction from wondering why
when they 'echo' stuff, it
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
My thoughts exactly. Defaults should work for the masses - it's not like
it's enforced behavior, that is irreversible.
? Which mass ?
Are you going to insist most scripts need inefficient auto flushing?
__ __
\ \ /
This has nothing to do with academical correctness. Flushing or not
flushing is not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of choice.
There's one 'real language' that does automatic flushing, it's called PHP,
and it's going to stay that way. Why other languages chose not to do it
(maybe
At 10:01 24/10/2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
At 02:51 24-10-2002, Alan Knowles wrote:
Im +1 for reverting the patch - (for what it's worth)
Why?
Well - most 'average' (and below) PHP programmers when attempting to do
CLI programming, will get a serious WTF reaction from
Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 10:01 24/10/2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
At 02:51 24-10-2002, Alan Knowles wrote:
Im +1 for reverting the patch - (for what it's worth)
Why?
Well - most 'average' (and below) PHP programmers when attempting to
do
Just wanted to add little more emphasis for the reason why I
say "weak reasoning".
My thoughts exactly. Defaults should work for the masses - it's not
like it's enforced behavior, that is irreversible.
Anyway, what kind of default we have for implicit flush in
-Original Message-
From: Yasuo Ohgaki [mailto:yohgaki;ohgaki.net]
Sent: 24 October 2002 09:01
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Melvyn Sopacua
Are you going to insist most scripts need inefficient auto flushing?
For CLI, yes.
Have you ever used other programming languages?
Yes -- over 40
-Original Message-
From: Yasuo Ohgaki [mailto:yohgaki;ohgaki.net]
Sent: 24 October 2002 07:42
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Alan Knowles
Alan Knowles wrote:
Im +1 for reverting the patch - (for what it's worth)
This makes 2+ for having auto flushing :)
Add one more -- or even
At 12:23 24/10/2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
function prompt($prefix) {
echo $prefix;
flush();
}
is _TRIVIAL_ to write. People should have this kind of
function instead of enabling inefficient implicit flushing
since it's more efficient and reliable.
You print something, it doesn't print out.
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Yes, since it should not set in php_cli.c.
It's a lot confusing, bad thing to do with current code,
inefficient, bad default, etc.
It's a very good default
Derick,
It's a very _bad_ default. Fortunately, it's not released
I thought that we have agreed that you should revert the patch. You can now
change the default behavior by both ini_set() and .the -d switch if you don't
like the default.
Edin
On Thursday 24 October 2002 00:27, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
I thought that we have agreed that you should revert the patch. You can now
change the default behavior by both ini_set() and .the -d switch if you don't
like the default.
Yes. It's ok as a temporally solution, but not as a long term.
I explicitly wrote I would like to
Im +1 for reverting the patch - (for what it's worth)
Why?
Well - most 'average' (and below) PHP programmers when attempting to do
CLI programming, will get a serious WTF reaction from wondering why when
they 'echo' stuff, it doesnt appear. The more advanced Users can
manually turn off
57 matches
Mail list logo
