Hello Sir,I am a PHP Programer at china.I require a CVS account to go shares my
DLL which designed by Microsoft Visual C++;Those DLL can be used to extend PHP
for corporation applications. Thanks!
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
Something like the variables produced by perl's my() operator so that
a variable is lexically scoped along with block-level scoping could
help earlier detection of when it's possible to release a variable.
This wouldn't solve leaks, but it might help prevent some
On 10/28/05, Andi Gutmans [EMAIL
The array_product() function is completely broken. I've filed a bug at
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=35014 describing the problem, but to summarise
it returns 0 for all valid input and when the input is an empty array.
I've also posted a patch, which fixes everything for me. I would appreciate
I believe I have it working. Anyone see any blatant problems with this?
Also, would it make sense to have this functionality in the engine itself?
Seeing as that internal classes have inheritance capabilities, it seems
logical to have the functionality to call a parent constructor within the
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
If you're going to add it in PHP_5_1 branch,
why are you adding the thing in HEAD NEWS file?
Because for now it is in HEAD only. Once PHP 5.1.0 has been released and
the PHP_5_1 branch is open for this kind of check-in, I will MFH the
patch from HEAD and move the NEWS
Hello Bob,
why so complex and potential wrong?
zend_class_entry *ce = Z_OBJ_CE(object);
zend_function*ctor = ce-parent ? ce-parent-constructor : NULL;
if (ctor ctor-common.fn_flags ZEND_ACC_PUBLIC) {
zend_call_method_with_0_params(object, ce, ctor, __construct, NULL);
}
btw, why
Hello Sebastian,
what do you think comes out first, 5.1.1 or 6.0 ?
marcus
Saturday, October 29, 2005, 12:36:04 PM, you wrote:
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
If you're going to add it in PHP_5_1 branch,
why are you adding the thing in HEAD NEWS file?
Because for now it is in HEAD only. Once PHP
Marcus Boerger schrieb:
what do you think comes out first, 5.1.1 or 6.0 ?
PHP 5.1.1, of course. But as I cannot yet commit to PHP_5_1 I did not
want to have the patch in HEAD without a NEWS entry.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key:
Hello Greg,
pear install looks much better now and i could finally get my rpm'w
working again. Right now there is only a warning that keeps the current
state from being perfect:
Installing PEAR environment:
/var/tmp/php5-5.1.0.dev-buildroot/usr/lib/php/pear/
--13:02:14--
Why so complex? Because I have no clue what I am doing, but why let a little
thing like that stop me.
Thanks for the suggestion, I had to modify it a bit to properly climb the
constructor chain though. You cant grab the ce of the active object since it
may have multiple parents up the chain. The
Hello Bob,
we are btw thinking of having a way to enfore calling parent ctor.
anyway that looks like you're heading towards some autoboxing feature.
Even though it is not necessary aas in java it may gives you the ability
to type check with base types as well and given the assumption you
Well in most cases, if your program isn't written in the global scope
but has methods or functions, then local variables will be removed
early enough. For situations where you need to force it I suggest to
use unset(). It'd be ugly to add another scoping operator and in most
cases it's not
A good point certainly... I suppose it could continue to follow the
current form, evaluating $c as false and return int(1) instead of
bool(true). Though that would probably diminish it's utility for 'if set
or'. And there would be a BC break for those doing:
$a = $b || $c;
if ($a === true) {
I searched bugs.php.net but couldn't find anything relating to this
issue. Unfortunately I am unable to test with versions newer than PHP
5.0.4 right now, so forgive me if this has already been addressed.
It seems that if the SOAP extension can cast the first key of an array
to an INT, it re-keys
A good point certainly... I suppose it could continue to follow the
current form, evaluating $c as false and return int(1) instead of
bool(true). Though that would probably diminish it's utility for 'if set
or'. And there would be a BC break for those doing:
$a = $b || $c;
if ($a === true) {
}
However, in terms of precedents, there are the combined assignment
operators such as =, +=, .=, and so on. They would suggest that
$a ||= $b;
should be equivalent to
$a = $a || $b;
So I don't think ||= in the suggested usage is intuitive. And adding
strange automagical meanings to $a = $a ||
Evaluating an idea based on it's syntactic similarities to other
languages is complete and utter nonsense. It has nothing to with being
like language Xyz. It has to do with familiarity to language constructs.
One already understands the idea of 'this || that'. It's certainly
I'll throw the
On Sat, 2005-10-29 at 14:07 -0700, Sara Golemon wrote:
Evaluating an idea based on it's syntactic similarities to other
languages is complete and utter nonsense. It has nothing to with being
like language Xyz. It has to do with familiarity to language constructs.
One already understands
Hello Jasper,
Saturday, October 29, 2005, 11:34:52 PM, you wrote:
On Sat, 2005-10-29 at 14:07 -0700, Sara Golemon wrote:
Evaluating an idea based on it's syntactic similarities to other
languages is complete and utter nonsense. It has nothing to with being
like language Xyz. It has to do
Sara Golemon wrote:
Evaluating an idea based on it's syntactic similarities to other
languages is complete and utter nonsense. It has nothing to with being
like language Xyz. It has to do with familiarity to language constructs.
One already understands the idea of 'this || that'. It's
I still think // and //= would be the most reasonable. They involve
the least amount of syntax and // looks similar to ||
On 10/29/05, Greg Beaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sara Golemon wrote:
Evaluating an idea based on it's syntactic similarities to other
languages is complete and utter
Sebastian wrote:
I still think // and //= would be the most reasonable. They involve
the least amount of syntax and // looks similar to ||
// is a comment. Why don't you guys at least take a peek at the grammar
before suggesting stuff.
-Rasmus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
You are joking, aren't you?
- David
-Original Message-
From: Sebastian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 12:43 AM
To: Greg Beaver
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] what happened to that new isset() like language
I still think // and //=
whoops, forgot about comments.
On 10/29/05, David Zülke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are joking, aren't you?
- David
-Original Message-
From: Sebastian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 12:43 AM
To: Greg Beaver
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject:
Hi!
If you want something similar why not something that's similar to the
currently used $x = isset($x) ? $x :'x';. I don't think PHP has
something that can be written as ?? currently and it would be similar
to the current expression: $x = $x ?? 'x'; or $x ??= 'x'; Or if it
should be a
Given that // is not acceptable, as others sarcastically reminded me,
and that this introduces new sytax, I think it might be best just to
add more functions. I don't think something like
$d = first-existing: $a, $b, $c;
is any better than first_existing($a, $b, $c), and the former happens
at
For the assign-if-not-set operator, I like the idea of:
$foo ?= 'bar';
? implies a condition, and the = immediately following will raise a parse
error in older versions.
There's admittedly potential for confusion with the ternary operator, but
since that's most commonly used for conditional
But what about the use of ? as an infix operator? that wouldn't work
out so well because of the ternary ?:
On 10/29/05, Arpad Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the assign-if-not-set operator, I like the idea of:
$foo ?= 'bar';
? implies a condition, and the = immediately following will raise
Sebastian wrote:
Given that // is not acceptable, as others sarcastically reminded me,
and that this introduces new sytax, I think it might be best just to
add more functions. I don't think something like
$d = first-existing: $a, $b, $c;
is any better than first_existing($a, $b, $c),
Sebastian wrote:
But what about the use of ? as an infix operator? that wouldn't work
out so well because of the ternary ?:
Right, which is why I didn't suggest that.
I think Greg's idea of first-existing: is an interesting one (and by the sound
of it the most robust).
Personally I'd like
Hello Edin,
on the other hand it is not doablenot without a major slowdown.
Thus the idea of ifsetor($var, expression).
Why the hell do we need to discuss this over and over again?
The only way is this version. Be it with some cryptic operator like
'?:' or some function name like 'ifsetor'.
It should be a function and not a language construct IMHO. Either ifsetor or
overload the isset statement (which may not be possible within the engine).
If isset called with 1 argument, it returns a boolean, otherwise it returns
the first valid variable.
Instead of:
$localvar =
Bob Silva wrote:
This makes perfect sense (to me at least):
$localvar = isset($_REQUEST['globalvar'], default value 1, ...);
The obvious problem there being that isset() currently takes multiple
variables as arguments and checks that they're all set. From the manual:
bool isset ( mixed var
Bob Silva wrote:
It should be a function and not a language construct IMHO. Either ifsetor or
overload the isset statement (which may not be possible within the engine).
It _has_ to be a language construct, and not a function (otherwise, we'd
get a notice when first using the variable).
It
Whoops, geez, you use a language for 8 years and you'd think you know what
it can do! Beyond that ifset is a nicer name than ifsetor, people can RTFM
(like I obviously should have done) to figure out the functionality.
-Original Message-
From: Arpad Ray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
35 matches
Mail list logo
