Back on [18 Oct 2001], in a comment re bug #13718, form elements with same name
problem, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
... (although we definetly should have a look at the [] syntax regarding standard
conformance) ...
Have you guys had any further thoughts about this? I would definitely like to
One corollary to becoming case-sensitive for function names needs to be considered: a
standard should be defined for module/extension function names (even if it's as simple
as all lower case no underscores!), and EVERY module/extension must be checked for
conformance before release of a
-Original Message-
From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 08 February 2002 13:46
At 02:39 PM 2/8/2002 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 14:30, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 02:20 PM 2/8/2002 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 14:14, Andi
I've just noticed that the manual's description of the difference between include()
and require() has changed some time in the last few months from:
include() differs from require() in that the include statement is re-evaluated each
time it is encountered (and only when it is being executed),
-Original Message-
From: Zeev Suraski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2002 17:41
I guess you didn't understand the change - require() became
like include(),
not the other way around. That means you can selectively
require() files,
inside if() statements or
-Original Message-
From: Ford, Mike [LSS] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 February 2002 18:05
(And I didn't bother to follow the link to require(),
which does include the necessary explanation,
Whoops, no that's wrong -- I was too quick on the trigger! The require
-Original Message-
From: Anil Garg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 June 2002 15:01
Hi,
In a form i have two elements:
I
input type=text name=name size=25 value=test
II
select name=categories[] multiple size=10
? option value = ...?
? option value = ?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 25 July 2002 09:15
To: Marko Karppinen
I like this idea, but I would propose to let the line always
begin with
Bug #bugnr (for sorting and stuff).
Is there any need to bother with Bug when it's on the
-Original Message-
From: Yasuo Ohgaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 17 October 2002 06:16
[snip]
Even if we never change the default,
?php echo ?xml ..?;? works always w/o patch.
[snip]
We may even have XML processor that processes PHP code in XML
documents in the
-Original Message-
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:rasmus;php.net]
Sent: 21 October 2002 05:49
admin directives can only be used in the httpd.conf file.
Non-admins can
be used in both httpd.conf and .htaccess. ie. directives
that end-users
should not be able to change themselves
-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
-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!
-Original Message-
From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:andi;zend.com]
Sent: 30 October 2002 19:26
I think you guys have convinced me that having only isn't too bad
(Jason will kill me now).
Does anyone here on php-dev have any additional thoughts?
Well, although I think it's a good idea
-Original Message-
From: Hacook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 19 November 2002 09:48
I have a chain charachter that look like this :
*text*text*text*text*textetc
I would like to cut off the FIRST star but not the others
My chain is REALLY long.
I made that script :
-Original Message-
From: Yasuo Ohgaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 19 November 2002 10:19
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, lowbwtom wrote:
Will there be a patch to fix the mbstring bug in 4.2.3? Any
idea when?
(specifically to fix the missing 4 characters in
-Original Message-
From: Zeev Suraski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 December 2002 12:15
Guys, fact is that it doesn't matter that much what this binary is
called. We can call it bhb for all practical purposes (not that I'm
suggesting that). People will get used to
-Original Message-
From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 10 January 2003 11:11
Lately, when people start asking php-general questions on
php-dev people
give them the answer and add but you should have asked on
the php-general
list. Having received a good answer
-Original Message-
From: Derick Rethans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 15 January 2003 15:17
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: PHP Quality Assurance Team Mailing List; PHP Developers
Mailing List
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Bugsystem status codes (Was: Re: #21659 [Com]:
sprintf)
On 15 Jan
-Original Message-
From: Andrey Hristov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 March 2003 17:26
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Andrey Hristov wrote:
Few minutes ago I found the following behaviour somehow
wierd for me :
Known bug, the associativity of the ternary operator has been
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 March 2003 19:33
To: Ford, Mike [LSS]
Cc: 'Andrey Hristov'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Possible problem in the parser
At 14:58 13.03.2003, Ford, Mike [LSS] wrote:
Just
-Original Message-
From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 March 2003 14:50
You are right that it doesn't behave the same as C. However,
personally
although it might have been better for it to work like C I
don't think it's
a good idea to change it now. First of
22 matches
Mail list logo
