On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 04:41 PM 11/26/2002 -0500, Daniel Cowgill wrote:
So why do the conversion in arithmetic? This seems bizarrely inconsistent to
me:
?
print (int) 0xA + 0; // prints 0
print (int) (0xA + 0); // prints 10
?
I think it's reasonable to expect
At 07:27 27/11/2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 04:41 PM 11/26/2002 -0500, Daniel Cowgill wrote:
So why do the conversion in arithmetic? This seems bizarrely inconsistent to
me:
?
print (int) 0xA + 0; // prints 0
print (int) (0xA + 0); // prints 10
?
I think it's reasonable to expect those
At 02:27 27/11/2002, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
Let's try being realistic, and focus on the quick wins first, such as
good error codes.
Go Stig.
Zeev
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
nope, it needs to be ini_set() -able if we're doing this at all ..
either that or we keep English as the hard-coded default and trust that
production server admins will see the wisdom of that.
I don't get why we can't use an error code and spawn an i8n-friendly
docref through it?
- Original
Ok...Using newest version of PHP on an NT IIS machine with a SQL 2000
database. Here is the issue:
I have a nvarchar field with a size of 4000.
I submit a text string from a form to this field.
It will display on submit using echo nl2br($variable) and it will display
fine.
When I look in the
Hi,
First of all - I hope I post to the right group. I could not find
any righter group for my question
Can somebody tell me when the version 5 of PHP will be released?
Can I find such plans at some website? Like:
We plan to release version 4.3 in march, and then the version 5
about may
?
I ask
Hi Piotr,
The short answer is that it will be ready when it is ready :)
We don't have a definite time frame for PHP 5 (we are not 100% sure what
features it will contain), and probably won't have a definite time frame
until we begin the release cycle (typically a month or more before we
release
Yep, NVARCHAR's get pissy at large sizes (in my experience anyway) when
PHP is interacting with them, (or any of the N variables for that
matter) change it to a TEXT and see what happens.
On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 06:20, Becky Gruebmeyer wrote:
Ok...Using newest version of PHP on an NT IIS machine
Hi!
I'm new to this list, I want to know if there is any function which
could return the actual call stack, or is it planned to be added?
It could be very useful (for example in my case, now :-).
If it's already implemented, i'm sorry, i could not be able to find it
in the doc.. In this case
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Miham KEREKES wrote:
Hi!
I'm new to this list, I want to know if there is any function which
could return the actual call stack, or is it planned to be added?
It could be very useful (for example in my case, now :-).
debug_backtrace() will be available in PHP 4.3.0 and
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:41:25 +0100 (CET)
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Miham KEREKES wrote:
Hi!
I'm new to this list, I want to know if there is any function which
could return the actual call stack, or is it planned to be added?
It could be very
debug_backtrace was backported into ze1. 4.3 will sstill use ze1.
George
Phil Dier wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:41:25 +0100 (CET)
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Miham KEREKES wrote:
Hi!
I'm new to this list, I want to know if there is any function which
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:41:25 +0100 (CET)
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Miham KEREKES wrote:
Hi!
I'm new to this list, I want to know if there is any function which
could return the actual call stack, or is it planned to be added?
It could be
Hi Gurus
Is there any way to make my own variables supeglobal like $_GET, $_POST, ...
?
I don't like $GLOBALS and I don't want to write the 'global' keyword each
time I use my global variable in functions, I want to have a method to make
it superglobal by default.
'Superglobal' means that
At 03:41 PM 11/27/2002 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Miham KEREKES wrote:
Hi!
I'm new to this list, I want to know if there is any function which
could return the actual call stack, or is it planned to be added?
It could be very useful (for example in my case, now :-).
Hi,
this was asked on this list at least once.
The answer is no because the design of the language is this.
If the user is given the chance to make variables superglobals than in my
opinion
big mess will come up. It is a mess even with coding by using global
statement and global vars.
Andrey
Hi,
No, this mechanism is only meant for the special variables (see archives of
php-dev).
In any case, I suggest you do use $GLOBALS[] and not the 'global' keyword
because it works better and the recommended way.
Andi
At 01:06 PM 11/27/2002 +0200, Alexander Radivanovich wrote:
Hi Gurus
Is
At 07:23 PM 11/27/2002 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 03:41 PM 11/27/2002 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Miham KEREKES wrote:
debug_backtrace() will be available in PHP 4.3.0 and higher.
if someone has time to implement
I'll do it, if you want.
Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 07:23 PM 11/27/2002 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 03:41 PM 11/27/2002 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Miham KEREKES wrote:
debug_backtrace() will be available in PHP 4.3.0 and
That'd be cool.
At 01:32 PM 11/27/2002 -0500, George Schlossnagle wrote:
I'll do it, if you want.
Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 07:23 PM 11/27/2002 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 03:41 PM 11/27/2002 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002,
User complains that maximum length of a line used by fscanf is too short
(he has lines 1600 chars). Looking at file.h I agree (it's only 512).
The user requested two options:
1) Add an optional length field.
No way to do that without breaking parameter list. :(
2) Increase to a larger
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Sara Pollita Golemon wrote:
User complains that maximum length of a line used by fscanf is too short
(he has lines 1600 chars). Looking at file.h I agree (it's only 512).
The user requested two options:
1) Add an optional length field.
No way to do that without
User complains that maximum length of a line used by fscanf is too short
(he has lines 1600 chars). Looking at file.h I agree (it's only 512).
The user requested two options:
1) Add an optional length field.
No way to do that without breaking parameter list. :(
2) Increase to a
Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 03:41 PM 11/27/2002 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Miham KEREKES wrote:
Hi!
I'm new to this list, I want to know if there is any function which
could return the actual call stack, or is it planned to be added?
It could be very useful
I'd probably go for class::function($arg1, $arg2).
Also take into consideration that the args aren't always available.
Andi
At 02:58 PM 11/27/2002 -0500, George Schlossnagle wrote:
Is there a concensus on how arguments should be printed out?
I'm shooting right now for a 'cluck' style backtrave
Is there a concensus on how arguments should be printed out?
I'm shooting right now for a 'cluck' style backtrave
class::function() called at file:line
Perhaps
class::function() called at file:line
Arguments:
print_r(args)
??
Well, probably the following:
class::function()
Try Looking at this parameter in the php.ini:
; Valid range 0 - 2147483647. Default = 4096.
mssql.textlimit = 65536
; Valid range 0 - 2147483647. Default = 4096.
mssql.textsize = 65536
colin
Becky Gruebmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Hmmm any hints on how to get the variable name out of the stack?
The code in debug_backtrace seems to only extract the value.
George
Andi Gutmans wrote:
I'd probably go for class::function($arg1, $arg2).
Also take into consideration that the args aren't always available.
Andi
At 02:58
At 03:13 PM 11/27/2002 -0500, George Schlossnagle wrote:
Hmmm any hints on how to get the variable name out of the stack? The
code in debug_backtrace seems to only extract the value.
There's no way but I don't think it's needed. When I wrote $arg1 I meant
the value not the name of the
Ok... but that looks nasty when you are passed an array or an object.
Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 03:13 PM 11/27/2002 -0500, George Schlossnagle wrote:
Hmmm any hints on how to get the variable name out of the stack?
The code in debug_backtrace seems to only extract the value.
There's no
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Sara Pollita Golemon wrote:
User complains that maximum length of a line used by fscanf is too short
(he has lines 1600 chars). Looking at file.h I agree (it's only 512).
The user requested two options:
1) Add an
I don't like us adding a new ini entry for this, I think we should try
another option:
4) Make sure we can use fscanf on a dynamically sized buffer. This will
definitely the hardest solution, but also the most beautiful one.
I like this fourth option, because the internal scanf
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote:
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't like us adding a new ini entry for this, I think we should try
another option:
4) Make sure we can use fscanf on a dynamically sized buffer. This will
definitely the hardest solution, but
err. it didn't need a reimplementation, i fixed it, it works fine in cvs.
Then,
?php
$buf = 123 456 \0 567
sscanf($buf, %d%d%s%d, $a, $b, $c, $d);
var_dump($a, $b, $c, $d);
?
How about this?
The result was the same as for fscanf.
Moriyoshi
-Sterling
Moriyoshi
Derick
At 03:18 PM 11/27/2002 -0500, George Schlossnagle wrote:
Ok... but that looks nasty when you are passed an array or an object.
Yeah but backtraces tend to look nasty :)
Andi
Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 03:13 PM 11/27/2002 -0500, George Schlossnagle wrote:
Hmmm any hints on how to get
err. it didn't need a reimplementation, i fixed it, it works fine in cvs.
Then,
?php
$buf = 123 456 \0 567
sscanf($buf, %d%d%s%d, $a, $b, $c, $d);
var_dump($a, $b, $c, $d);
?
How about this?
The result was the same as for fscanf.
Yes, but it didn't need a reimplementation
Sterling Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
err. it didn't need a reimplementation, i fixed it, it works fine in cvs.
Then,
?php
$buf = 123 456 \0 567
sscanf($buf, %d%d%s%d, $a, $b, $c, $d);
var_dump($a, $b, $c, $d);
?
How about this?
The result was the same as
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't like us adding a new ini entry for this, I think we should
try another option:
4) Make sure we can use fscanf on a dynamically sized buffer. This
will definitely the hardest solution, but also the most beautiful
one.
I'll admit to not
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't like us adding a new ini entry for this, I think we should
try another option:
4) Make sure we can use fscanf on a dynamically sized buffer. This
will definitely the hardest solution, but also the most beautiful
one.
I'll
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Sara Pollita Golemon wrote:
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't like us adding a new ini entry for this, I think we should
try another option:
4) Make sure we can use fscanf on a dynamically sized buffer. This
will definitely the hardest
While waiting for opinions on Bug#20460 I went ahead and addressed #20308.
User complains that parse_url returns the full email address in 'path'
element. Makes reference to documents which claim it should return 'user'
and 'host' element.
To address this request and maintain backward
While waiting for opinions on Bug#20460 I went ahead and addressed #20308.
User complains that parse_url returns the full email address in 'path'
element. Makes reference to documents which claim it should return 'user'
and 'host' element.
To address this request and maintain backward
I am not so sure that adding special cases for things like mailto: and so on
is a good idea. The code works identically to how it worked in 4.2.3 and
prior.
Ilia
On November 27, 2002 04:19 pm, Sara Pollita Golemon wrote:
While waiting for opinions on Bug#20460 I went ahead and addressed
Hi
I nedd to know, what command matches best with urlencode() from PHP.
Is it encodeURL() or encodeRedirectURL() or something else.
thx for your help
mfg Robert
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
That was one of the comments I was looking for Is this really necessary?
After all the user can certainly use explode() to take it apart. I'm not
against giving him that answer, it was just a quick patch to write...
Is that a -1 then?
I am not so sure that adding special cases for things like
George Schlossnagle wrote:
Is there a concensus on how arguments should be printed out?
I quite like the output of
foreach ($backtrace as $step) {
if (!empty($step['args'])) {
foreach ($step['args'] as $arg) {
$args = isset($args) ? $args . ', ' : '';
On November 27, 2002 04:45 pm, Sara Pollita Golemon wrote:
That was one of the comments I was looking for Is this really necessary?
After all the user can certainly use explode() to take it apart. I'm not
against giving him that answer, it was just a quick patch to write...
Is that a -1
On November 27, 2002 04:45 pm, Sara Pollita Golemon wrote:
That was one of the comments I was looking for Is this really necessary?
After all the user can certainly use explode() to take it apart. I'm not
against giving him that answer, it was just a quick patch to write...
Is that a
Hi,
In my application I would like to offer a search interface like Google and
other popular search engines. The complication for me is to explode the
search string into proper array elements, like this:
$search_str = \search for this sentence\ -NotForThisWord
ButDefinitelyForThisWord;
On November 27, 2002 04:32 pm, Sterling Hughes wrote:
On November 27, 2002 04:45 pm, Sara Pollita Golemon wrote:
That was one of the comments I was looking for Is this really
necessary? After all the user can certainly use explode() to take it
apart. I'm not against giving him that
Here's first shot at a patch. The output it generates is ugly as sin if
you use objects though. I though about flattening them out, but that
gets long and nasty (and requires specialized print functions which
while easy seem to be of marginal use elsewhere.)
George
Index:
And here is a version which flattens the calling args onto a single line
(similar to sebastians usersapce script). Longer, but a bit prettier
output.
Index: Zend/zend.c
===
RCS file: /repository/Zend/zend.c,v
retrieving revision
Apologies in advance if this is the wrong mailing list. Please direct me to
a more appropriate mailing list if there is one :-)
When a PHP string variable is changed via a PHP script, such as:
$foo = 'new value';
what happens to the `value.str.val' pointer internally? Is it possible to
have
Benny Rasmussen wrote:
Hi,
In my application I would like to offer a search interface like Google
and other popular search engines. The complication for me is to explode
the search string into proper array elements, like this:
$search_str = \search for this sentence\ -NotForThisWord
The second release candidate of the inimitably fabulous PHP version 4.3.0 is
out. It can be downloaded from http://qa.php.net. Give it a good testing!
-Andrei
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Could someone please help. Running Linux 7.3 RH with 512 MB Ram with Apache
and PHP 4. I receive the following error and was wondering if anyone had
any suggestions. The error: Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 8388608
bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 35 bytes) in
in your php.ini file you have allocated only 8mb for use... this is probably not
sufficient for your scripts to use...
remember that this size is in bytes...
you might want something like this...
67108860 bytes = 64 mb
Jonathan Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL
67108860 bytes = 64 mb
64M will also work, I believe.
John
Jonathan Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Could someone
please help. Running Linux 7.3 RH with 512 MB Ram with
Apache and PHP 4. I receive the following error and was
I started a faq on this but anyway one can
use K (kilobytes) or M (megabytes) for these
type of directives. A plain integer == Bytes.
Regards,
Philip
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, John Coggeshall wrote:
67108860 bytes = 64 mb
64M will also work, I believe.
John
Jonathan Williams
59 matches
Mail list logo
