Derick Rethans wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Yeah, I also thought the word "need" is a bit strong :) It's more like
"syntactic sugar which is nice-to-have"
As I just told Ilia on IRC, I think we should not add this (now) for a
couple of reasons:
- Adding new language constructs
At 08:02 30/10/2004, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
- Adding new language constructs in mini releases is IMO not the way to
go as it will make it possible impossible to run script that use this
new construct not even parse on PHP 5.0.x servers. Adding normal new
functions does
Some of us have been playing around with static and have come up with this..
not my code
I am curious as to why this errors. What is happening internally.
My thoughts were that is was a scope issue.
Kind regards
Kevin
-
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch
I still consider adding such things wrong
-sterling
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:51:12 +0400, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:26:08 +
>
>
> Curt Zirzow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * Thus wrote Antony Dovgal:
> > > On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:04:23 -0700
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 02:36:00PM +0200, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > > AFAIK Joe is going to commit his patch, but we need to "fix" it
for the
> > > PECL extensions too if applicable.
> >
> > I was kind of waiting for Sascha to review it... do you want me to
> > commit it now? PECL extensions
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 10:46:28 -0800
Sterling Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still consider adding such things wrong
Sterling, I still think that you can be right, but I'd
like to hear some arguments.
"This is wrong" or "this is silly" aren't too informative.
--
Wbr,
Antony Dovgal ak
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 01:19:54 +0300, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 10:46:28 -0800
> Sterling Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I still consider adding such things wrong
>
> Sterling, I still think that you can be right, but I'd
> like to hear some argument
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, moshe doron wrote:
> where the problem about 'taking it ever further'?
> I'm +1 for {-1} and more +1 for {-4,2} python likeness.
That starts getting confusing. I assume that translates to the 3rd and
4th chars from the end of the string. And, to verify that I went and
look
Hello Rasmus,
Sunday, October 31, 2004, 11:27:40 PM, you wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, moshe doron wrote:
>> where the problem about 'taking it ever further'?
>> I'm +1 for {-1} and more +1 for {-4,2} python likeness.
> That starts getting confusing. I assume that translates to the 3rd and
> 4
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Rasmus,
Sunday, October 31, 2004, 11:27:40 PM, you wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, moshe doron wrote:
where the problem about 'taking it ever further'?
I'm +1 for {-1} and more +1 for {-4,2} python likeness.
That starts getting confusing. I assume that translates to the 3
Doesn't substr($a, -1) work ?
--Wez.
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:45:03 -0500, Greg Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would reduce the errors I inevitably get
> whenever using a complex feature like substr(). The three choices:
>
> 1) substr($a, strlen($a) - 1);
> 2) $a{strlen($a) - 1}
> 3) $a{-
Wez Furlong wrote:
Doesn't substr($a, -1) work ?
I knew that looked funny, but couldn't figure out why for some reason,
thanks for the good catch.
Greg
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hello Wez,
well it would. However 5.1 aims to be a major speed improvement and that's
what the idea is about.
best regards
marcus
Monday, November 1, 2004, 2:29:46 AM, you wrote:
> Doesn't substr($a, -1) work ?
> --Wez.
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:45:03 -0500, Greg Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
i hope not. this should be about what's cool for developers, the
speed increase is not a compelling reason.. the debate is "does this
make code easier to read/write/maintain?" I think it doesn't, and
therefore am against it.
-sterling
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 03:04:45 +0100, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> i hope not. this should be about what's cool for developers, the
> speed increase is not a compelling reason.. the debate is "does this
> make code easier to read/write/maintain?" I think it doesn't, and
> therefore am against it.
And I agree with
15 matches
Mail list logo
