Re: [PHP-DEV] Of string constants, bytecode, and concatenation
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, David Brown wrote: Okay. Makes complete sense. I was thinking more along the lines of wouldn't it be nice if...?. I hadn't quite made it to where would that belong?. :) I'll check out the optimizers. I noticed that the new CVS version of APC seems to have a configuration option for optimization as well, though I'm not sure how far along it is. That configuration option doesn't do anything right now (see the INSTALL file for details)--the plan is to integrate the PEAR optimizer with APC (since having separate extensions isn't particularly user-friendly), but I've been too busy to get to it. It's on the to-do list... -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP-DEV] CVS Account Request: dcowgill
Maintain apc, apd and optimizer in PECL -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Zend fast cache
On Saturday, November 30, 2002, at 07:17 PM, Sterling Hughes wrote: The problem I see with an array approach from an api perspective is simply when a bucket is free'd, in order to have efficient memory usage, we'd need a second level array scan for every ALLOC_ZVAL(). Perhaps a linked list would be a better choice for this, as we can just be smart about bucket access, and eliminate the need for a scan (could be possible I'm missing something?) I agree, a singly linked list seems like a no-brainer; it's an ideal memory-pool data structure because inserts and deletes occur only at the front of the list (so they're constant-time), the links are free, and the implementation is straightforward. -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] RFC: Conversion patch
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 expressions to return the same value. On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-devm=90279104406264w=2 There's more... Andi At 10:21 PM 11/26/2002 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote: On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote: I remember having a long conversation on this issue quite a long time ago. I think it was on php-dev. The bottom line was that we only want conversion in the scanner and not within PHP. Too bad, because the following thing is totally uninituitive: echo (int)0x200; (prints 0) And I searched for a discussion on this, but couldnt' find it. I wonder why it was decided to be like this. Derick -- - Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl/ JDI Media Solutions http://www.jdimedia.nl/ PHP Magazine - PHP Magazine for Professionals http://php-mag.net/ - -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Programming question
On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 12:24:03PM -0400, George Schlossnagle
wrote:
On a related note, placing null-bytes in the middle of strings
(for example
in the names of the so-called lambda_functions generated from
create_function()) seems like a pretty questionable practice.
why, this makes sure that function-names generated by
create_function() will never clash with userland code.
i think that makes perfect sense.
tc
In that case, I should point out that
function __lambda_func() {}
$fn = create_function('', '');
does not work.
Dan
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: rand_str
This sort of function should be implemented in PHP. It doesn't say good
things about a language when such trivial functionality needs to be
implemented non-natively. And it doesn't need to be:
function str_rand($len = 8, $class = 'a..zA..Z0..9')
{
if (!preg_match_all('/(.)\.\.(.)/', $class, $matches)) {
return '';
}
$chars = array();
$m1 = $matches[1];
$m2 = $matches[2];
for ($i = 0; $i count($m1); $i++) {
$chars = array_merge($chars,
range(ord($m1[$i]), ord($m2[$i])));
}
if (($nchars=count($chars)) == 0) {
return '';
}
else if ($nchars == 1) {
return str_pad('', $len, chr($chars[0]));
}
$str = '';
for ($i = 0; $i $len; $i++) {
$str .= chr($chars[mt_rand(0, $nchars-1]);
}
return $str;
}
A translation into C might run about 100 times faster. In most applications,
that doesn't justify sacrificing the flexibility and safety of a native
implementation.
On a related note, I don't see why PHP shouldn't ship with a standard
library written in PHP.
-Dan
- Original Message -
From: Cynic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: PHP Developers Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: rand_str
At 22:50 8/5/2001, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote the following:
--
Implementing something that has NOT that limitation, is far less
trivial.
function str_rand($len = 8, $class = 'a-zA-Z1-9')
{
static $init = 1;
if(1 == $init){
mt_srand((double) microtime() * 100);
$init = 0;
}
$chars = array();
for($i = 0; $i $len; $i++){
$chars[] = chr(mt_rand(0,255));
}
return implode('', preg_grep('|['.preg_quote($class).']|',$chars));
}
Just a little bit different syntax for the second argument.
What's the big deal? :)
Okay, but hey, you're a PHP-expert with probably many years of
experience...
Fr from that. :)
By the way, your function won't return strings of length $len... ;)
Oh, shit. Optimization instead of a function. :)
I've been sitting before the CRT for 30 hours...
And you could say that preg_grep is quite a hack.
Well, it nicely fits the bill - if you use the second argument as
a character class, preg_quote/grep() lends itself. Or do you mean the
concatenation? That's just a matter of formatting. Take it out of the
preg_grep() call, and it'll look better.
Anyway, this didn't convince me it's trivial... I'm sorry.
ok. :) seems like the only function that'll be missing from PHP
will be write_the_app(); :)))
But this is really a non-issue. I'm fine with or without str_rand(),
I was just trying to show that it's pretty easy to write one in PHP,
and so the function isn't really necessary. I know, there's nl2br()
which _is_ simple, but that's backed by the fact that in a web-oriented
language, _everybody_ would write their own nl2br(). This is not the
case with str_rand()...
And now help me down off that soap box. :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
And the eyes of them both were opened and they saw that their files
were world readable and writable, so they chmoded 600 their files.
- Book of Installation chapt 3 sec 7
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
