On 18-Feb-04, at 6:56 PM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, TheSin wrote:
and I have imap building and loading but when I try to use it...
imap_open($server, $user, $pass);
$server = "{mail.domain.com:143}INBOX";
and the user and pass are setand it kept failing so I ran apache
in
de
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, TheSin wrote:
>and I have imap building and loading but when I try to use it...
>
>imap_open($server, $user, $pass);
>
>$server = "{mail.domain.com:143}INBOX";
>and the user and pass are setand it kept failing so I ran apache in
>debug mode so it wouldn't fork and saw tha
Hi,
I am wondering if there is any plan to support RFC 2696 "LDAP Control
Extension for Simple Paged Results Manipulation".
LDAP has a problem that most/all servers aren't designed to handle large
result sets. Some servers are set so that the largest result sets they
can handle are as small as
Hi,
I agree that allowing $a->bar() with a static method is too confusing,
and should not be allowed. However, the ability to call a static method
of an object (variable class name, in other words), is invaluable. What
if PHP simply allowed $object::staticMethod() syntax?
I did some playing
On 18 Feb 2004 at 21:02, Michael Walter wrote:
> This is rather wrong - one of C++' main strengths is that it allows
> multiple paradigms of programming (procedural, object-oriented,
generic,
> generative, functional, ...) which can also be mixed etc. Instead of
> ideologically focusing on onl
Hi, I'm the fink maintainer/porter for php4 on Darwin/OSX
I have all the modules building and running with little effort on
4.3.4, except imap and java
I finally got java dlopening the proper dylib but I'm getting JNI bus
error
and I have imap building and loading but when I try to use it.
From: Banyai Zsolt
> If I know well, the domxpath::query always returns with DOMNodeList. But
> if i write an expression like this: //node1/@attribute and i haven't
> got node1 node in the XML, the query return with false (boolean). But if
> i write an expression like this: //node1/@attr when i h
Hi,
If I know well, the domxpath::query always returns with DOMNodeList. But
if i write an expression like this: //node1/@attribute and i haven't
got node1 node in the XML, the query return with false (boolean). But if
i write an expression like this: //node1/@attr when i have node1 node
but i ha
Ferdinand Beyer wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2004 at 11:02, Brad Fisher wrote:
>
> > For one because PHP doesn't allow method overloading. If I have
> a method
> > A::foo($a), and I want to change the prototype in B to B::foo($x,
> $y), then
...snip...
> > (like C::A_foo) which then calls A::foo internal
Greetings,
The latest edition of the Contractor Power eNewsletter is now available online at:
http://www.contractorpower.com/news/feb/4.htm
Enjoy the new issue and feel free recommend new features.
Until Next Month,
Norm Denroche
President Contractor Power
To be t
Ferdinand Beyer wrote:
> [...]
C++ is difficult since it includes C. Nevertheless every C++
programmer is 100% coding (and thinking) object-oriented - even
basic data types like strings are usually objects.
This is rather wrong - one of C++' main strengths is that it allows
multiple paradigms o
On 18 Feb 2004 at 20:21, Michael Walter wrote:
> What is your criterium of a language being an "OO language"?
Why is it
> that you consider C++ as an OO language, but not PHP?
C++ is difficult since it includes C. Nevertheless every C++
programmer is 100% coding (and thinking) object-oriented
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>At 08:20 AM 2/18/2004 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>>On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>>
>> >At 12:01 AM 2/18/2004 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>> >> >That's fine. I thought you meant to make register_list_destructors() call
>> >> >register_list_dest
Ferdinand Beyer wrote:
> [...]
Well, I must confess that I do not know Perl (perhaps I'm to young).
But I said "not available in any OO language" - neither Perl nor PHP
are OO languages in my opinion (like Java, C++) so we should not
use Perl as a role model here :-)
What is your criterium of a
On 18 Feb 2004 at 12:33, John Coggeshall wrote:
> No. There is *no* reason why static methods should be called from
an
> object context. Doing so is more than a notice -- its flat out wrong
and
> defeats the entire purpose of having static in the first place...
I agree with John.
I would even
On 18 Feb 2004 at 11:02, Brad Fisher wrote:
> For one because PHP doesn't allow method overloading. If I have
a method
> A::foo($a), and I want to change the prototype in B to B::foo($x,
$y), then
> there is no way for me to call the original A::foo. I could use
optional
> params to emulate t
Hi -
Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:23:04 -0500
John Coggeshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
class foo {
static function bar() {
}
}
$a = new foo();
$a->bar(); /* Unacceptable and contradictory to the concept of static
*/ foo::bar(); /* Acceptable */
I have the sam
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:33:35 -0500
John Coggeshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. There is *no* reason why static methods should be called from an
> object context. Doing so is more than a notice -- its flat out wrong
> and defeats the entire purpose of having static in the first place...
I on
C++ allows $a->bar() when bar() is a static method (yes, it is called
in a static context there too).
IMO, there should be no error, warning or notice here.
--Wez.
> > class foo {
> > static function bar() {
> > }
> > }
> > $a = new foo();
> > $a->bar(); /* Unacceptable and contradictory to the
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:14:04 -0500
John Coggeshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if I download a new class from some site, or otherwise use someone
> else's code, how do I know other than digging through the source on
> a method's context? If $this isn't set I can't do the check, and if
> then engi
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 12:30, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
> We are talking about the same thing. A notice (error sounds too
> drastic here) should be raised if a static method is called from the
> instanciated object.
No. There is *no* reason why static methods should be called from an
object context
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:23:04 -0500
John Coggeshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> class foo {
> static function bar() {
> }
> }
> $a = new foo();
> $a->bar(); /* Unacceptable and contradictory to the concept of static
> */ foo::bar(); /* Acceptable */
I have the same problem as George :
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 12:21, George Schlossnagle wrote:
> Maybe I'm having a slow-English day, but how is the first sentence here
> is not intrinsically self-contradictory?
:)
class foo {
static function bar() {
}
}
$a = new foo();
$a->bar(); /* Unacceptable and contradictory t
On Feb 18, 2004, at 12:14 PM, John Coggeshall wrote:
This is a completely acceptable thing, and it is IMO completely wrong
to
even allow in the engine. foo::bar() should be the only accepted syntax
for static functions.
Maybe I'm having a slow-English day, but how is the first sentence here
is no
> imho, this is the expected behavior. At least a notice should be raised.
> I do not see a reason to define $this if a method is explicitly defined
> as static (means it should not be called dynamically). Declare the
> same funciton as public|private|protected and everything works fine.
There is
Ferdinand Beyer wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2004 at 14:01, Brad Fisher wrote:
>
> > class D {
> > function bar() {
> > $c = new C;
> > // I'd like to call the A::foo method of C here...
> > //In PHP4, I could do something like:
>
> Why should one want to do that? Why should PHP allow this
> Is the fix applied in the current available snapshot (Win 32 package)
> from Feb 16, 2004 15:30 GMT?
>
that snapshot did not work for me, but
http://snaps.php.net/win32/php5-win32-200402181130.zip does fine.
and there is also another new snapshot on http://snaps.php.net/
webwurst
--
PHP Int
Forget it. That works the same way in php4.
Sorry for the noise :)
pierre
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:44:10 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hartmut Holzgraefe) wrote:
> it works for the first call to getFoo(),
> on any following call include_once
> will ignore "inc.php" as it was already
> included before, and as $foo is a local
> variable to getFoo() it won't exist in
> any but th
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:39:10 +0100
Pierre-Alain Joye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:27:56 +0100
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pierre-Alain Joye) wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Having the scripts pasted below:
> >
> > include_once fails to declare the variable 'foo'. Replace include_onc
Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
Hello,
Having the scripts pasted below:
include_once fails to declare the variable 'foo'. Replace include_once
by include and it works. I got the same behavior using require and
require_once.
Am I wrong to see that as a bug?
inc.php
testinc.php
---
fun
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:27:56 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pierre-Alain Joye) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Having the scripts pasted below:
>
> include_once fails to declare the variable 'foo'. Replace include_once
> by include and it works. I got the same behavior using require and
> require_once.
To be pre
Hello,
Having the scripts pasted below:
include_once fails to declare the variable 'foo'. Replace include_once
by include and it works. I got the same behavior using require and
require_once.
Am I wrong to see that as a bug?
inc.php
testinc.php
---
hth
pierre
--
PHP Inte
On 17 Feb 2004 at 14:01, Brad Fisher wrote:
> class D {
> function bar() {
> $c = new C;
> // I'd like to call the A::foo method of C here...
> //In PHP4, I could do something like:
Why should one want to do that? Why should PHP allow this?
$c is not an A, it is a C. Of course
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 02:53:50 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Coggeshall) wrote:
> http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=27304
>
> Marcus says he's brought this up before, and i think it really needs
> to be addressed before PHP 5 so I'm bringing it up again. I am told
> that currently we are allowing stat
On Feb 18, 2004, at 2:51 AM, Georg Richter wrote:
I would like to propose a change in how mysqli_fetch() signifies "no
more data." It should return NULL instead of MYSQLI_NO_DATA (a
positive value) because it leads to cleaner PHP code and is more
consistent with other MySQL fetch functions.
Thanks
Hi Adam,
> I would like to propose a change in how mysqli_fetch() signifies "no
> more data." It should return NULL instead of MYSQLI_NO_DATA (a
> positive value) because it leads to cleaner PHP code and is more
> consistent with other MySQL fetch functions.
Thanks for pointing it out. The reason
37 matches
Mail list logo
