Bug #64571 [Com]: PDO CREATE TRIGGER
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=64571&edit=1
ID: 64571
Comment by: email at philsturgeon dot co dot uk
Reported by:jehoshua02 at gmail dot com
Summary:PDO CREATE TRIGGER
Status: Not a bug
Type: Bug
Package:PDO related
Operating System: Ubuntu 12.10 Desktop 64bit
PHP Version:5.4.13
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
This should actually be $pdo->exec('CREATE TRIGGER...');
Previous Comments:
[2013-04-06 15:43:25] fel...@php.net
DELIMITER is not a mysql statement, but a mysql client command.
Use a separated statement for create trigger part. e.g. $pdo->query("CREATE
TRIGGER ...");
[2013-04-03 00:28:44] jehoshua02 at gmail dot com
Could the root of this problem be somehow related to the multiple-query problem?
[2013-04-03 00:09:02] jehoshua02 at gmail dot com
Description:
I'm using PDO in some simple script to do database migrations and realized that
my triggers weren't being created. I checked to make sure the triggers were
correct by first copying and pasting them into mysql interactive console, then
by using `SOURCE ...`, then by passing the file name into mysql command, each
time verifying the trigger was created by using "SHOW TRIGGERS WHERE `Trigger`
= :trigger". I concluded that the problem was not with my trigger statements,
or with mysql, but with PDO.
The actual PHP version is 5.4.6-1ubuntu1.2 so I chose the closest one.
Test script:
---
https://gist.github.com/jehoshua02/5297332
Expected result:
I would expect to see the trigger printed as an associative array.
Actual result:
--
The trigger is not created even though the script completes without any errors
or exceptions.
--
Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=64571&edit=1
Req #40296 [Com]: "unless" control structure
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40296&edit=1
ID: 40296
Comment by: email at philsturgeon dot co dot uk
Reported by:mail at tobyinkster dot co dot uk
Summary:"unless" control structure
Status: Wont fix
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:*General Issues
Operating System: All
PHP Version:5.2.0
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
It looks like this conversation dried up after the rather out-of-context
confusion
over unless somehow meaning "more".
Can we move past that please, as it's a ridiculous non-issue.
Previous Comments:
----
[2012-07-30 15:09:00] email at philsturgeon dot co dot uk
Rasmus: toby was not suggesting that "uniqid" is the opposite of "iqid", he is
saying that you can have "un" at the start of a function or keyword without it
automatically flipping the meaning of the next few letters and confusing people
-
as you suggested in your comment yesterday.
In neither situation does "un" switch the meaning of the following letters, so
if
it is ok for one function/keyword it should be ok for another, right?
I don't want to argue, I just want to make sure people are clear. I would hate
to
see this conversation derailed by confusion or people loudly agreeing.
[2012-07-30 15:00:31] ras...@php.net
Now you are just being silly. "uniqid" is "unique id" from the latin root "uni"
meaning one or singular. Makes perfect sense . It isn't "un" anything.
[2012-07-30 13:19:47] mail at tobyinkster dot co dot uk
FWIW, while Perl does allow
unless (foo) { bar }
else { baz }
I've never seen it in the wild. I've only ever seen unless used without any
trailing else conditions. (And although Perl syntax allows else following
unless, it explicitly disallows elsif following unless.) I'd be perfectly happy
for PHP to forbid both elseif and else after unless.
> It also isn't a very common feature in other languages
Latin had "nisi". Modern languages derived from Latin are all the poorer for
having lost this concept.
> It is an odd word that essentially means not-if even though
> it logically should be equivalent to "more" as in the
> opposite of "more" would be "less" and sticking "un" in
> front of it suddenly completely changes the meaning entirely.
By that logic, uniqid() should return the opposite of the iqid() function.
[2012-07-29 21:42:28] email at philsturgeon dot co dot uk
In regards to double negatives, I agree. If I see a developer do this unless a
!=
7 then I would block their PR and instantly go and have a talk with them about
writing sane code.
As for else it really shouldn't be used that much but it should be possible.
unless (foo === 'bar') {
// do something
}
else {
// do something else
}
Is that really a confusion?
Unlesselse might become a dog though, not sure about that:
unless (foo === 'bar') {
// do something
}
unlesselse (foo === 'baz') {
// do something
}
else {
// do something else
}
At that point you'd just want to be using a switch, but that is the same for
if's.
As I said unless should not really use an else, otherwise you'd be better off
just
using an if and swapping it around, but having it doesn't hurt.
[2012-07-29 21:35:45] kinghfb+php at gmail dot com
The structure adds sugar without necessarily breaking anything (with the
exception of existing unless() functions, as Rasmus mentioned). I really don't
think the double-negatives argument works here, as we're already doing that
with 'if', meaning that the readability is quite low in some cases.
My only concern is that the structure seems to be more easily convoluted than
'if', potentially leading to nightmarish comprehension tasks.
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40296
--
Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40296&edit=1
Req #40296 [Com]: "unless" control structure
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40296&edit=1
ID: 40296
Comment by: email at philsturgeon dot co dot uk
Reported by:mail at tobyinkster dot co dot uk
Summary:"unless" control structure
Status: Wont fix
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:*General Issues
Operating System: All
PHP Version:5.2.0
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
Rasmus: toby was not suggesting that "uniqid" is the opposite of "iqid", he is
saying that you can have "un" at the start of a function or keyword without it
automatically flipping the meaning of the next few letters and confusing people
-
as you suggested in your comment yesterday.
In neither situation does "un" switch the meaning of the following letters, so
if
it is ok for one function/keyword it should be ok for another, right?
I don't want to argue, I just want to make sure people are clear. I would hate
to
see this conversation derailed by confusion or people loudly agreeing.
Previous Comments:
[2012-07-30 15:00:31] ras...@php.net
Now you are just being silly. "uniqid" is "unique id" from the latin root "uni"
meaning one or singular. Makes perfect sense . It isn't "un" anything.
[2012-07-30 13:19:47] mail at tobyinkster dot co dot uk
FWIW, while Perl does allow
unless (foo) { bar }
else { baz }
I've never seen it in the wild. I've only ever seen unless used without any
trailing else conditions. (And although Perl syntax allows else following
unless, it explicitly disallows elsif following unless.) I'd be perfectly happy
for PHP to forbid both elseif and else after unless.
> It also isn't a very common feature in other languages
Latin had "nisi". Modern languages derived from Latin are all the poorer for
having lost this concept.
> It is an odd word that essentially means not-if even though
> it logically should be equivalent to "more" as in the
> opposite of "more" would be "less" and sticking "un" in
> front of it suddenly completely changes the meaning entirely.
By that logic, uniqid() should return the opposite of the iqid() function.
[2012-07-29 21:42:28] email at philsturgeon dot co dot uk
In regards to double negatives, I agree. If I see a developer do this unless a
!=
7 then I would block their PR and instantly go and have a talk with them about
writing sane code.
As for else it really shouldn't be used that much but it should be possible.
unless (foo === 'bar') {
// do something
}
else {
// do something else
}
Is that really a confusion?
Unlesselse might become a dog though, not sure about that:
unless (foo === 'bar') {
// do something
}
unlesselse (foo === 'baz') {
// do something
}
else {
// do something else
}
At that point you'd just want to be using a switch, but that is the same for
if's.
As I said unless should not really use an else, otherwise you'd be better off
just
using an if and swapping it around, but having it doesn't hurt.
[2012-07-29 21:35:45] kinghfb+php at gmail dot com
The structure adds sugar without necessarily breaking anything (with the
exception of existing unless() functions, as Rasmus mentioned). I really don't
think the double-negatives argument works here, as we're already doing that
with 'if', meaning that the readability is quite low in some cases.
My only concern is that the structure seems to be more easily convoluted than
'if', potentially leading to nightmarish comprehension tasks.
[2012-07-29 20:36:46] hi at brennannovak dot com
I like this idea quite a bit- of course I am a native english speaker as well
(American), but considering this is used in Ruby & Python the language barrier
is
not too great that it hinders use. Additionally there are *many* abbreviations
in
PHP that consist of multiple "english" words which developers are able to
understand such as strcmp()
Once I memorize what a group of characters *do* I stop thinking about the words
that make up the function.
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40296
--
Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40296&edit=1
Req #40296 [Com]: "unless" control structure
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40296&edit=1
ID: 40296
Comment by: email at philsturgeon dot co dot uk
Reported by:mail at tobyinkster dot co dot uk
Summary:"unless" control structure
Status: Wont fix
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:*General Issues
Operating System: All
PHP Version:5.2.0
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
In regards to double negatives, I agree. If I see a developer do this unless a
!=
7 then I would block their PR and instantly go and have a talk with them about
writing sane code.
As for else it really shouldn't be used that much but it should be possible.
unless (foo === 'bar') {
// do something
}
else {
// do something else
}
Is that really a confusion?
Unlesselse might become a dog though, not sure about that:
unless (foo === 'bar') {
// do something
}
unlesselse (foo === 'baz') {
// do something
}
else {
// do something else
}
At that point you'd just want to be using a switch, but that is the same for
if's.
As I said unless should not really use an else, otherwise you'd be better off
just
using an if and swapping it around, but having it doesn't hurt.
Previous Comments:
[2012-07-29 21:35:45] kinghfb+php at gmail dot com
The structure adds sugar without necessarily breaking anything (with the
exception of existing unless() functions, as Rasmus mentioned). I really don't
think the double-negatives argument works here, as we're already doing that
with 'if', meaning that the readability is quite low in some cases.
My only concern is that the structure seems to be more easily convoluted than
'if', potentially leading to nightmarish comprehension tasks.
[2012-07-29 20:36:46] hi at brennannovak dot com
I like this idea quite a bit- of course I am a native english speaker as well
(American), but considering this is used in Ruby & Python the language barrier
is
not too great that it hinders use. Additionally there are *many* abbreviations
in
PHP that consist of multiple "english" words which developers are able to
understand such as strcmp()
Once I memorize what a group of characters *do* I stop thinking about the words
that make up the function.
--------------------
[2012-07-29 20:25:43] email at philsturgeon dot co dot uk
Thanks for stopping by Rasmus, that was a really quick follow up.
I think you might have pointed out the crux of the confusion: being a native
English speaker. To me it makes perfect sense, but I am British.
Unless the condition is true, do this.
I like the post: https://37signals.com/svn/posts/2699-making-sense-with-rubys-
unless
A new keyword just to replace "if ( ! (condition))" might seem like a hassle,
and
the objective of the game is not always to make PHP "nice", but it is readable
and
logical to many, and is easy to ignore if you don't like it - unless you have
function unless(), but the chances are that function is doing something similar
anyway.
[2012-07-29 20:16:53] ras...@php.net
Any new keyword breaks BC to some extent because it will break any code that
has
an existing unless() function. I agree with others here that unless() can be
quite confusing. A negated conditional keyword lends itself to double negatives.
It also isn't a very common feature in other languages and definitely not
obvious to non-native English speaking people like myself. It is an odd word
that essentially means not-if even though it logically should be equivalent to
"more" as in the opposite of "more" would be "less" and sticking "un" in front
of it suddenly completely changes the meaning entirely.
[2012-07-29 20:00:40] email at philsturgeon dot co dot uk
I am surprised to see such a lack of interest on this feature request.
Ruby and Perl both have "unless", and while that is certainly not a reason on
its
own, it does show that this is used.
There are two people here saying that unless is confusing. How so? If something
matches false then do whatever. It has an else too, so if something is true it
will be used.
The main point here is not to remove a single !, but to make much cleaner
syntax.
if ( ! (isset($foo) or ($foo !== 'bar')) exit('invalid value');
or
unless (isset($foo) and $foo === 'bar') exit('invalid value');
Its a minor difference as I cannot remember a more compelling exa
Req #40296 [Com]: "unless" control structure
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40296&edit=1
ID: 40296
Comment by: email at philsturgeon dot co dot uk
Reported by:mail at tobyinkster dot co dot uk
Summary:"unless" control structure
Status: Wont fix
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:*General Issues
Operating System: All
PHP Version:5.2.0
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
Thanks for stopping by Rasmus, that was a really quick follow up.
I think you might have pointed out the crux of the confusion: being a native
English speaker. To me it makes perfect sense, but I am British.
Unless the condition is true, do this.
I like the post: https://37signals.com/svn/posts/2699-making-sense-with-rubys-
unless
A new keyword just to replace "if ( ! (condition))" might seem like a hassle,
and
the objective of the game is not always to make PHP "nice", but it is readable
and
logical to many, and is easy to ignore if you don't like it - unless you have
function unless(), but the chances are that function is doing something similar
anyway.
Previous Comments:
[2012-07-29 20:16:53] ras...@php.net
Any new keyword breaks BC to some extent because it will break any code that
has
an existing unless() function. I agree with others here that unless() can be
quite confusing. A negated conditional keyword lends itself to double negatives.
It also isn't a very common feature in other languages and definitely not
obvious to non-native English speaking people like myself. It is an odd word
that essentially means not-if even though it logically should be equivalent to
"more" as in the opposite of "more" would be "less" and sticking "un" in front
of it suddenly completely changes the meaning entirely.
------------------------
[2012-07-29 20:00:40] email at philsturgeon dot co dot uk
I am surprised to see such a lack of interest on this feature request.
Ruby and Perl both have "unless", and while that is certainly not a reason on
its
own, it does show that this is used.
There are two people here saying that unless is confusing. How so? If something
matches false then do whatever. It has an else too, so if something is true it
will be used.
The main point here is not to remove a single !, but to make much cleaner
syntax.
if ( ! (isset($foo) or ($foo !== 'bar')) exit('invalid value');
or
unless (isset($foo) and $foo === 'bar') exit('invalid value');
Its a minor difference as I cannot remember a more compelling example, but
there
have been numerous times I have wished to reverse this and have unless instead
of
an extremely complex if statement.
Unless just makes sense, it's optional, it doesn't break BC, it makes syntax
easier to read in some situations and it is easy to document. If I knew enough
C
I'd send in a patch right now as PHP would be better off for having this.
[2011-12-30 13:50:47] joke at nakhon dot net
I vote against this request. Both perl and ruby's 'unless' confuse me so much.
It can be easy to abuse.
I often encounter someone wrote code like this:
unless a != 7
b = 3
else
b = 6
end
[2011-08-04 20:59:24] achaia3 at gmail dot com
This would be a convenient feature for sure with no down sides for anybody not
wishing to use it.
[2011-06-05 22:47:45] mattr dot smith at gmail dot com
I also request this feature.
Ruby has this structure too and really adds to the readability of code.
I don't see any argument at against this that is valid other than the fact that
PHP programmers don't want to change.
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40296
--
Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40296&edit=1
Req #40296 [Com]: "unless" control structure
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40296&edit=1
ID: 40296
Comment by: email at philsturgeon dot co dot uk
Reported by:mail at tobyinkster dot co dot uk
Summary:"unless" control structure
Status: Open
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package:Feature/Change Request
Operating System: All
PHP Version:5.2.0
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
I am surprised to see such a lack of interest on this feature request.
Ruby and Perl both have "unless", and while that is certainly not a reason on
its
own, it does show that this is used.
There are two people here saying that unless is confusing. How so? If something
matches false then do whatever. It has an else too, so if something is true it
will be used.
The main point here is not to remove a single !, but to make much cleaner
syntax.
if ( ! (isset($foo) or ($foo !== 'bar')) exit('invalid value');
or
unless (isset($foo) and $foo === 'bar') exit('invalid value');
Its a minor difference as I cannot remember a more compelling example, but
there
have been numerous times I have wished to reverse this and have unless instead
of
an extremely complex if statement.
Unless just makes sense, it's optional, it doesn't break BC, it makes syntax
easier to read in some situations and it is easy to document. If I knew enough
C
I'd send in a patch right now as PHP would be better off for having this.
Previous Comments:
[2011-12-30 13:50:47] joke at nakhon dot net
I vote against this request. Both perl and ruby's 'unless' confuse me so much.
It can be easy to abuse.
I often encounter someone wrote code like this:
unless a != 7
b = 3
else
b = 6
end
[2011-08-04 20:59:24] achaia3 at gmail dot com
This would be a convenient feature for sure with no down sides for anybody not
wishing to use it.
[2011-06-05 22:47:45] mattr dot smith at gmail dot com
I also request this feature.
Ruby has this structure too and really adds to the readability of code.
I don't see any argument at against this that is valid other than the fact that
PHP programmers don't want to change.
[2007-12-31 23:19:51] michael at chunkycow dot com dot au
G'day
Perl has lots of 'features' in it, although I cannot see how an
'unless' control structure adds to anything but confusion for existing/new
developers.
[2007-01-31 12:26:42] mail at tobyinkster dot co dot uk
Description:
It would be nice if PHP had an "unless" control structure so that:
unless (...) { ... }
would be equivalent to:
if (!(...)) { ... }
Although the "unless" control structure is actually slightly more verbose (in
bytes) than "if", it is arguably a lot more readable in the following examples:
unless ($a==0 || $b==0)
divide_by($a*$b);
versus:
if (!($a==0 || $b==0))
divide_by($a*$b);
or, equivalently using De Morgan's Law (Google for it):
if ($a!=0 && $b!=0)
divide_by($a*$b);
The "unless" structure uses less punctuation, and more human syntax. I can't
imagine how this extra syntax would break any existing scripts.
For what it's worth, Perl already has an "unless" control structure.
--
Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=40296&edit=1
