Folks:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:10:28PM -0400, Daniel Convissor wrote:
> STATIC
> --
> DocBook:
>
>foo
>
> public
> static
> int
> bar
>
>
... snip ...
> OBJECT
> --
> DocBook:
>
>foo
>
> public
> int
> bar
>
>
I've just
Hi Hannes:
> Bug report it, I'll see if I can change it this weekend.
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=51667
Thanks so much,
--Dan
--
T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y
data intensive web and database programming
http://www.AnalysisA
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 15:12, Daniel Convissor
wrote:
> Hi Hannes:
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:08:44AM +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>>
>> I think a new entity saying "Both examples above will output" is needed..
>> Looks great though.
>
> It already exists and is what I used in that example.
Hi Hannes:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:08:44AM +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>
> I think a new entity saying "Both examples above will output" is needed..
> Looks great though.
It already exists and is what I used in that example.
> Is the html already generated by PhD like this?
No.
> And
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:10, Daniel Convissor
wrote:
> Hi Hannes:
>
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 03:44:32PM +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 15:39, Daniel Convissor
>> wrote:
>>
>> > What seems clearest to me is to have Example #1 be drop dead simple use
>> > case and be c
Hi Hannes:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 03:44:32PM +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 15:39, Daniel Convissor
> wrote:
>
> > What seems clearest to me is to have Example #1 be drop dead simple use
> > case and be composed of an OOP programlisting, a procedural
> > programlisting
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 15:39, Daniel Convissor
wrote:
> Hi Hannes:
>
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:46:47AM +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 21:17, Daniel Convissor
>> wrote:
>
>> > If you're talking about the same , I agree. ?If you are talking
>> > about the same , I dis
Hi Hannes:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:46:47AM +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 21:17, Daniel Convissor
> wrote:
> > If you're talking about the same , I agree. ?If you are talking
> > about the same , I disagree because it will lengthen and
> > clutter the example.
>
> T
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 21:17, Daniel Convissor
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:42:14PM +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>>
>> > I suggest we go with &style.oop; (mapping to "Object oriented style") for
>> > everything. ?The parenthetical method/constructor/property are
>> > supurfluous beca
Hi Hannes:
Thanks for your thorough consideration. Here are some more thoughts...
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:42:14PM +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>
> Wouldn't &style.oop.[[static.]method|ctor|dtor|property]; make more
> sense? Just to make it really clear what it is.
If there were cases whe
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 04:28, Daniel Convissor
wrote:
> Hi Folks:
>
> In trying to add the procedural style interface to the DateTime docs I
> went searching for how we currently present stuff that has both object
> oriented and procedural interfaces. It turns out there is no consistent
> way of
Hi Peter:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 09:00:50AM +0100, Peter Cowburn wrote:
>
> I don't think having a new example block just for output makes much
> semantic sense. How about having multiple elements
> (one per paradigm) and one with the &examples.outputs*
> entities?
I just tested it and it wor
On 22 April 2010 03:28, Daniel Convissor
wrote:
> Hi Folks:
>
> In trying to add the procedural style interface to the DateTime docs I
> went searching for how we currently present stuff that has both object
> oriented and procedural interfaces. It turns out there is no consistent
> way of going
13 matches
Mail list logo
