Zitat von Jay Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jan Schneider wrote:
>
> >
> > I generally agree (this is the purpose of E_NOTICE after all), but
> there
> > is a subtle difference between what has been fixed and what is broken
> now.
> > Passing NULLs to array_merge didn't lead to the borked arrays th
Jan Schneider wrote:
>
> I generally agree (this is the purpose of E_NOTICE after all), but there
> is a subtle difference between what has been fixed and what is broken now.
> Passing NULLs to array_merge didn't lead to the borked arrays that have
> been "fixed" by this patch.
>
How are the ar
Zitat von Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In my opinion the change is fine, given the current state of affairs a
> transitional release between 4.3 & 5.0 does not seem likely. Therefor it
> would only seem logical to give people a fair warning (E_NOTICE) that the
> (wrong) behavior they ar
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 11:44:29AM -0400, Jay Smith wrote:
>
> Is this fix really causing this much grief? Throwing an E_NOTICE isn't a BC
> break. It still works as before, it just throws the E_NOTICEs now. This was
> meant to be a bridge to the behaviour used in PHP 5, which, like other
> array_
Jay Smith wrote:
> The function is called array_merge(), not null_merge() or string_merge().
> The change was to make it act more like other array functions, like
> array_intersect() or array_sum(), which also check parameters for arrays.
>
> What's the consensus? Keep the change or revert? Perso
In my opinion the change is fine, given the current state of affairs a
transitional release between 4.3 & 5.0 does not seem likely. Therefor it
would only seem logical to give people a fair warning (E_NOTICE) that the
(wrong) behavior they are relying upon is not going work/last forever.
Otherw
Wez Furlong wrote:
>
> Actually, this is Ilia's decision, but I think we should not raise any
> notices for NULL values, for the sake of BC. It really does suck to break
> code that was working with no problems in a minor release.
>
> If the change had been made for 4.3, or 4.4 or 5, it wouldn'
Hi Jay,
> Is this fix really causing this much grief? Throwing an E_NOTICE isn't a
BC
> break. It still works as before, it just throws the E_NOTICEs now.
yes and yes :)
Smart people (like Jan) write code that doesn't cause E_NOTICEs.
Now they are faced with code that worked flawlessly before bu
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 11:59, Manfred Stienstra wrote:
> gcc -fpic -DCOMPILE_DL=1 -I/usr/local/include -I. -I.. -I ../..
> -I../../Zend -I../../include -I../../main -I../../TSRM -c -o monet.o
> monet.c
I had this problem myself recently before I figured out how to build the
standalone shared module
Hi,
I guess I should introduce myself first: I'm Manfred Stienstra, I'm a
parttime web application programmer and parttime student Artificial
Intelligence.
I was asked by a teacher to create a php api for MonetDB [1], I started
working on that today, and I can't find out how to create a dynamic
l
Is this fix really causing this much grief? Throwing an E_NOTICE isn't a BC
break. It still works as before, it just throws the E_NOTICEs now. This was
meant to be a bridge to the behaviour used in PHP 5, which, like other
array_*() functions, doesn't work on non-arrays at all. (Although that fix
Hi,
the recent change to array_merge that now checks for IS_ARRAY breaks BC IMO.
At least I know get a lot of E_NOTICEs everywhere.
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, jan at horde dot org wrote:
> ID: 25494
> Comment by: jan at horde dot org
> Reported By: enygma at phpdeveloper dot o
12 matches
Mail list logo
