php-general Digest 18 Mar 2013 02:47:03 -0000 Issue 8167
Topics (messages 320617 through 320624):
Re: actually HTML again; resizeing images
320617 by: Jim Giner
320618 by: Stuart Dallas
320619 by: David OBrien
Re: variable type - conversion/checking
320620 by: Maciek Sokolewicz
320623 by: Matijn Woudt
modulo function
320621 by: georg
320622 by: Maciek Sokolewicz
Re: [PHP-DEV] feature request : easy shared memory
320624 by: Larry Garfield
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
php-general-digest-subscr...@lists.php.net
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
php-general-digest-unsubscr...@lists.php.net
To post to the list, e-mail:
php-gene...@lists.php.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Begin Message ---
On 3/17/2013 9:22 AM, georg wrote:
Anyone knows a good reading about how and when images displayd with HTML tags
are
re-sized ?
tnx
georg
not php
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 17 Mar 2013, at 13:22, "georg" <georg.chamb...@telia.com> wrote:
> Anyone knows a good reading about how and when images displayd with HTML tags
> are
> re-sized ?
Not entirely sure what you mean, but a downloaded image will be resized when it
needs to be shown in different dimensions to the actual image, whether that's
due to width and height attributes on an img tag, or CSS styles, or whatever.
The specific algorithm used (which I'm guessing is what you mean by "how" is up
to the browser and cannot be controlled.
-Stuart
--
Stuart Dallas
3ft9 Ltd
http://3ft9.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mar 17, 2013 12:28 PM, "Stuart Dallas" <stu...@3ft9.com> wrote:
>
> On 17 Mar 2013, at 13:22, "georg" <georg.chamb...@telia.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyone knows a good reading about how and when images displayd with
HTML tags are
> > re-sized ?
>
> Not entirely sure what you mean, but a downloaded image will be resized
when it needs to be shown in different dimensions to the actual image,
whether that's due to width and height attributes on an img tag, or CSS
styles, or whatever.
>
> The specific algorithm used (which I'm guessing is what you mean by "how"
is up to the browser and cannot be controlled.
>
> -Stuart
>
> --
> Stuart Dallas
> 3ft9 Ltd
> http://3ft9.com/
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
Unless you use something like treesaver
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 16-3-2013 19:20, Matijn Woudt wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Maciek Sokolewicz <
maciek.sokolew...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I have tried to find a way to check if a character string is possible to
test whether it is convertible to an intger !
any suggestion ?
BR georg
All responses in this thread have been very nice; but you could also try a
much simpler 2-step check:
1. is_numeric
2. if true > check if there's a decimal character in the string:
if(is_numeric($str) && false === strpos('.', $str)) {
// it's an int for sure
} else {
// might be a number, but it's definitly not an int
}
Wrong. is_numeric will accept 1e1, which is a float, so you would need to
check for e or E too.
- Matijn
Although in theory I agree, indeed any e* number is treated as a
floating point number. However, considering the exponent and the base
are forced to be integer numbers (due to exclusion of decimal points),
in the real number system, you will *always* end up with a natural
number, i.e. integer. Regardless of your input.
So as a result, the input could always be interpreted as an integer,
without any precision-loss using the method above.
- Tul
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Maciek Sokolewicz <
maciek.sokolew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16-3-2013 19:20, Matijn Woudt wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Maciek Sokolewicz <
>> maciek.sokolew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have tried to find a way to check if a character string is possible to
>>>> test whether it is convertible to an intger !
>>>>
>>>> any suggestion ?
>>>>
>>>> BR georg
>>>>
>>>>
>>> All responses in this thread have been very nice; but you could also try
>>> a
>>> much simpler 2-step check:
>>>
>>> 1. is_numeric
>>> 2. if true > check if there's a decimal character in the string:
>>>
>>> if(is_numeric($str) && false === strpos('.', $str)) {
>>> // it's an int for sure
>>> } else {
>>> // might be a number, but it's definitly not an int
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>> Wrong. is_numeric will accept 1e1, which is a float, so you would need to
>> check for e or E too.
>>
>> - Matijn
>>
>> Although in theory I agree, indeed any e* number is treated as a
> floating point number. However, considering the exponent and the base are
> forced to be integer numbers (due to exclusion of decimal points), in the
> real number system, you will *always* end up with a natural number, i.e.
> integer. Regardless of your input.
>
> So as a result, the input could always be interpreted as an integer,
> without any precision-loss using the method above.
> - Tul
>
Except... that it might not fit in an 32 or 64 bit integer, which would
lead to precision loss.
- Matijn
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Guess there should be one in PHP but cant find it
(tnx for many earlier answers)
Br georg
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 17-3-2013 22:23, georg wrote:
Guess there should be one in PHP but cant find it
(tnx for many earlier answers)
Br georg
You mean the modulus operator? 10%3 => 1
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.operators.arithmetic.php
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 03/14/2013 01:21 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
Sharing active memory between processes goes against the "shared nothing"
design of PHP. The lack of the feature you're describing is itself a feature. :-)
If you had real shared memory, then you're now writing a multi-threaded app.
Even if you aren't using threads per se it's the same level of potential for
spooky action at a distance. If your problem space really requires that (and
there certainly are those that do), Java or NodeJs will suit you better because
those are built specifically for a persistent-server model, rather than PHP's
shared-nothing design. However, in practice most PHP/web applications don't
need that, because HTTP is a stateless request/response system. Shared-nothing
more closely models what the actual environment is doing, and can still be very
performant as long as you don't do anything naive.
If you're doing something stateful like Web Sockets, then you can run PHP as a
cli application that is its own persistent server rather than as an Apache
add-on. For that, look at Ratchet: http://socketo.me/
--Larry Garfield
If PHP should be so restrictive against sharing, why are there extensions like
memcached, ...? Someone must have missed this possibility to share rapidly...
If I need something like websockets, I use the pthreads extension: perfectly
suited for stateful applications.
For example: I want to have the database in memory (no, no mysql Memory-tables;
this is too slow...) and only do the updates into the database for faster
access when most contents are read-only. What are these good reasons against
such a feature except it violates the shares-nothing superlative of PHP. (Even
if this feature would exist, you can still write PHP without sharing)
Bo Weinand
Memcache is out of process. There are possible race conditions there,
but FAR fewer and FAR more contained than true multi-threaded environments.
This list has debated the merits of shared-nothing many times before; it
was a deliberate design decision in the interest of simplifying
development for the overwhelming majority of users. If your app is so
performance sensitive that a memcache lookup is going to bring it to its
knees, then either you're misusing PHP or you're better off using
something other than PHP. (PHP is not the tool for every use case.)
In any event, adding true shared memory to PHP would be nearly
impossible without completely redesigning the way it interacts with web
servers. The alternative is to write your own PHP CLI application that
connects to sockets itself and runs as a daemon (possibly using the
pthreads extention as you mention), and cut apache/nginx out of the
picture entirely. If your use case calls for that, knock yourself out.
But the "good reasons" against adding such a feature is that it would
require rewriting everything and rearchitecting the entire Apache SAPI,
which is not happening any time soon.
--Larry Garfield
--- End Message ---
