> cvs co -r PHP_5_2
>
> ./buildconf
>
> ./configure \
> --enable-fastcgi \
> --enable-debug \
> --with-pgsql \
> --disable-xml \
> --disable-libxml \
> --disable-simplexml \
> --disable-xmlreader \
> --disable-exmlwriter \
> --disable-dom \
> --without-pear
>
> make
>
> zend_language_scanner.c:
On Wed, July 18, 2007 10:45 am, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I also was thinking the other day, like Ze'ev, that PHP Devs aren't
really in touch with the unwashed masses of the userbase...
There are a zillion websites "out there" that run on shared hosts with
copy/pasted code and all these scripters will
Richard Lynch wrote:
Any gurus really offended by ereg can --disable-ereg or whatever it
is, no?
So in a dream world, Rasmus would have shipped all the features of PHP
42 as his first release.
In a slightly less dreamy, but still unrealistic world, we would have
infinite development resour
Sara Golemon wrote:
Attached is a patch which exports an internals hook in zend_class_entry
for fetching function pointers similar to the object hook get_method()
available to instance methods.
This patch also exports a userspace hook __call_static() which operates
in the fashion of the curre
Is it normal that there's a couple hundred blank lines after the #!
/bin/sh first line?...
Made me think my FTP was very very broken for a minute there... :-v
On Thu, July 19, 2007 1:46 am, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Richard Lynch wrote:
>> I sure hope this isn't something particularly bone-headed..
On Thu, July 19, 2007 1:59 am, David wrote:
>> cvs co -r PHP_5_2
>>
>> ./buildconf
>>
>> ./configure \
>> --enable-fastcgi \
>> --enable-debug \
>> --with-pgsql \
>> --disable-xml \
>> --disable-libxml \
>> --disable-simplexml \
>> --disable-xmlreader \
>> --disable-exmlwriter \
>> --disable-dom \
On Thu, July 19, 2007 12:45 am, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Richard Lynch wrote:
What is the status of bringing PHP build process up to current
automake/autoconf/libtool versions?...
Or you could try simply using the current versions. They work fine.
Yes, they all fail equally well. :-)
I also
On 18/07/07, Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So the short answer is: no. End of story.
Don't start another endless thread about something that "would be nice" when we
have bigger issues on the table that need to be solved before any release, be it
alpha/beta/whatever, can be done..
-
On Thu, July 19, 2007 1:46 am, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> I don't see how this could possibly have anything to do with libxml.
Probably not.
It's just that I've never tried to not have libxml, and it always
worked before.
> zend_language_scanner.c is generated by flex from
> zend_language_scanner.l
On Thu, July 19, 2007 2:56 am, Nuno Lopes wrote:
>> On Thu, July 19, 2007 12:45 am, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>> Richard Lynch wrote:
What is the status of bringing PHP build process up to current
automake/autoconf/libtool versions?...
>>
>>> Or you could try simply using the current version
On Wed, July 18, 2007 3:04 am, Derick Rethans wrote:
> I hope you are not suggesting to port them to both modes? Why on earth
> should an application support both unicode=off and unicode=on? That's
> exactly the thing that some of us are so afraid of and want to prevent
> as this just annoys more a
> zend_language_scanner.c: No such file or directory
Found the issue (at least for me). The problem was that the version of flex
I had was 2.5.33, which is the latest version. However, 2.5.4 (an older
version, confusingly) is the only version supported by PHP (which is noted
in the documentation).
Richard Lynch wrote:
> I sure hope this isn't something particularly bone-headed...
>
> Meanwhile, what made me think that I was screwing up buildconf is
> actually not related to any particular version of
> automake/autoconf/libtool at all, as I get the same thing with all
> combinations readily
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 02:31 -0400, Cristian Rodriguez wrote:
> On 7/19/07, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Kind of a PITA...
>
> No problems here with automake-1.10 , autoconf-2.61 , libtool-1.5.22,
> bison-2.3.
> the only oldie we had to keep is flex, as PHP buildsystem wont supp
What about adding the files generated by flex to CVS? Most people don't need
to regenerate those files anyway, and this way they could keep the newer
version of flex on their machine.
> Downgrading flex to 2.5.4a-r6...
>
> seems to have fixed the issue.
>
> I'm running make test right no
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:49:59 -0700, "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Downgrading flex to 2.5.4a-r6...
>>
>> seems to have fixed the issue.
>>
>> I'm running make test right now :-)
>>
>> Thanks all!!!
>>
>> PS
>> I've also edited the but with a request to make it a Documentation
>> Fix, rat
On 7/19/07, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about adding the files generated by flex to CVS? Most people don't need
to regenerate those files anyway, and this way they could keep the newer
version of flex on their machine.
Most people don't use CVS, they use a) the releases b) snapshots.
Daniel Jänecke skrev:
> I don't get the point of it. IMO this will only add another level of
> confusion to sourcecode; unless someone has a real good example (better
> than those in the posted link) where this technique is required I cannot
> see which benefit this feature adds.
>
1. Neither dan
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Other than the theological views some people on this list have
(either very pro-BC or anti-BC), what did keeping BC cost us?
Hey that must be me he is talking about - as I am a real theologian!
So for a theologians 2c on Unicode:
1. Teaching unicode and PHP
As stated e
Short version: Fixed in CVS. :D
--Jani
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 00:57 -0700, David wrote:
> > zend_language_scanner.c: No such file or directory
>
> Found the issue (at least for me). The problem was that the version of flex
> I had was 2.5.33, which is the latest version. However, 2.5.4 (an older
> From the low end user perspective I think this would be great from
> another POV. Let's imagine for a second that Wordpress will only work
> with unicode semantics off and that phpBB will only work with the switch
> "on". What if someone would want to run both on a shared server?
from httpd.c
Do you have a patch?
On 19.07.2007 16:26, Keryx Web wrote:
Daniel Jänecke skrev:
> I don't get the point of it. IMO this will only add another level of
> confusion to sourcecode; unless someone has a real good example (better
> than those in the posted link) where this technique is required I
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 14:27 +0200, Keryx Web wrote:
> one *main* purpose and that is I am trying to remedy the extremely sad
> situation when it comes to books and other teaching material about PHP
> in Sweden. All books we have got by Swedish authors are so bad that I
> actively discourage peop
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 15:47 +0300, Tomas Kuliavas wrote:
> > From the low end user perspective I think this would be great from
> > another POV. Let's imagine for a second that Wordpress will only work
> > with unicode semantics off and that phpBB will only work with the switch
> > "on". What if
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Do you have a patch?
Also @Antony Dovgal in the "let blocks" thread
Short answer: No.
The reason I posted my suggestions on this list was that a while ago I
had a few ideas as to how PHP could be improved. A seasoned PHP
developer suggested that I'd take my suggestio
On 7/19/07, Keryx Web <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Do you have a patch?
Also @Antony Dovgal in the "let blocks" thread
Short answer: No.
The reason I posted my suggestions on this list was that a while ago I
had a few ideas as to how PHP could be improved. A seasoned PH
On 19.07.2007 17:41, Keryx Web wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Do you have a patch?
Also @Antony Dovgal in the "let blocks" thread
Short answer: No.
The reason I posted my suggestions on this list was that a while ago I
had a few ideas as to how PHP could be improved.
What I don't underst
The reason I posted my suggestions on this list was that a while ago I
had a few ideas as to how PHP could be improved. A seasoned PHP
developer suggested that I'd take my suggestions to this list.
Thanks a lot for your suggestions, but (as you can see from the list) we have a lot of other th
On 7/19/07, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19.07.2007 17:41, Keryx Web wrote:
> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>> Do you have a patch?
>
> Also @Antony Dovgal in the "let blocks" thread
>
> Short answer: No.
>
> The reason I posted my suggestions on this list was that a while ago I
> had a
On 7/19/07, David Coallier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/19/07, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19.07.2007 17:41, Keryx Web wrote:
> > Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> >> Do you have a patch?
> >
> > Also @Antony Dovgal in the "let blocks" thread
> >
> > Short answer: No.
> >
> > The rea
It could be interesting to know, if the reason why this hasn't been
implemented already, is technical one, or a design decision?
I think it's design one since nobody took care to design it :) I
personally don't see much need for it, since PHP is not a compiled
language, so there's little use f
Hi David,
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 13:09 -0400, David Coallier wrote:
> After a bit of discussion with Jani, I came to realize that keeping
> the wrapper macro for php_rand, php_srand is plain useless. Yes some
> pecl extensions do rely on them (and for those who do, I also provided
> a patch [3]). W
I totally agree. the only reasn for the 5-2 patch was for people to test
On 7/19/07, Johannes Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi David,
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 13:09 -0400, David Coallier wrote:
> After a bit of discussion with Jani, I came to realize that keeping
> the wrapper macro for php_
On 7/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I totally agree. the only reasn for the 5-2 patch was for people to test
You can simply keep the old functions for 5.2 and remove them in HEAD.
We can't remove an API (or change it) in a point release, it is a full
breakage (BC and binar
On 7/19/07, Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I totally agree. the only reasn for the 5-2 patch was for people to test
You can simply keep the old functions for 5.2 and remove them in HEAD.
We can't remove an API (or change it) in a poi
> 2. Block scope is part of quite a few languages. Does it serve any
purpose in C, C# or Java? Does "my" and "local" serve any purpose in
PERL? [1]
Funny that you ask, because Perl docs you linked specifically say
"local" does not serve any real purpose, is extremely confusing and they
have i
Too bad it only works for Apache module.. ;)
I think on Windows you can do something with the registry per-dir too.
On unix there's no registry though. Maybe we need some generic solution
to this (like for FastCGI users)? Anybody has good ideas?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[
On 7/19/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I consider block scope a sort of "namespaces light", an easy to
> understand first step. As JS 2 will have the "let" keyword - and to most
> newbies JS will be the principal "other" language besides PHP - a
> similar construct would be
On 7/19/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Too bad it only works for Apache module.. ;)
I think on Windows you can do something with the registry per-dir too.
On unix there's no registry though. Maybe we need some generic solution
to this (like for FastCGI users)? Anybody has go
Python did go down that road, but take a look at Python 3000 effort
and you will see that what they are trying to do is exactly what we
have: native Unicode strings, without prefixes.
-Andrei
On Jul 18, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Functions would work properly with Unicode, but
Python did go down that road, but take a look at Python 3000 effort and
you will see that what they are trying to do is exactly what we have:
native Unicode strings, without prefixes.
Maybe still having u"" - that always produce unicode, regardless of
semantics - could be helpful...
--
Stani
I don't like the idea of having a "u" prefix for Unicode strings. It may
improve performance, and give you some level of fine grain control, but...
- It breaks your "keep php simple" policy by introducing a lot of new
functions (ugly).
- I (plus a lot of others) have an existing php5 application
On 7/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't like the idea of having a "u" prefix for Unicode strings. It may
improve performance, and give you some level of fine grain control, but...
- It breaks your "keep php simple" policy by introducing a lot of new
functions (ugly).
-
On Jul 19, 2007, at 4:14 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't like the idea of having a "u" prefix for Unicode strings.
It may
improve performance, and give you some level of fine grain control,
but...
- It breaks your "keep php simple" policy by introducing a lot o
I don't really know much about unicode, and to be honest, I don't really
know much about the internal workings of php.
But I assume that there are going to be different implementations of string
functions depending on whether the string is unicode or not.
I'm going to suggest an implementation sug
Sorry if you are using outlook, turn off the thing that says "Extra line
breaks in this message were removed" at the top of my previous message.
Scott
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 20 July 2007 10:11 AM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Sub
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:13:25 -0700, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Too bad it only works for Apache module.. ;)
>
> I think on Windows you can do something with the registry per-dir too.
> On unix there's no registry though. Maybe we need some generic solution
> to this (like
Yeah I also like that casting better than the "u"
It's different things. Casting means "create string as binary, then in
runtime cast it to unicode", u"" means "this string is unicode".
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:16:33 +0200, Tijnema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/19/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > I consider block scope a sort of "namespaces light", an easy to
>> > understand first step. As JS 2 will have the "let" keyword - and to
> most
>> > newbies
On 7/19/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah I also like that casting better than the "u"
It's different things. Casting means "create string as binary, then in
runtime cast it to unicode", u"" means "this string is unicode".
--
You are right that casting means string -> bi
Just as an additional note ...
God forbid you ever have to make some kind of change to all or most of your
unicode strings that use "u" -- You can't exactly do a "Find in Files" for "u"
and expect to not sift through a LOT of results that aren't what you're looking
for. Even searching for u" (t
On Thu, July 19, 2007 7:38 am, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> Short version: Fixed in CVS. :D
You folks rock!
--
Some people have a "gift" link here.
Know what I want?
I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist.
http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch
Yeah, I get a buck. So?
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runt
Am 19.07.2007, 14:27 Uhr, schrieb Keryx Web <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > Other than the theological views some people on this list have
> (either very pro-BC or anti-BC), what did keeping BC cost us?
>
> Hey that must be me he is talking about - as I am a real theologian!
>
>
53 matches
Mail list logo
