Matthias Pigulla wrote:
> I have to back Sebastian with what he said. Obviously the release methodology
> currently applied does NOT work, neither for the project nor the community
> around it.
It has worked for many years, just because of one problem you don't
scrap the process.
> BUT: Once yo
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:37:39 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Beaver) wrote:
> Taking the class out of PHP 5 will solve the problem for now (and I
> absolutely agree that this is necessary - so does *everyone* else save
> Derick, who is now on vacation and can't defend himself), but any time
> in the
Hi Sara,
Sara Golemon wrote:
For the record, I vote for :::
T_מְשֻׁלָּשׁ_NEKUDOTAYIM
(Sorry, couldn't find a transliteration of "triple")
-Sara
I'll call it T_JESSIEYIM_NEKUDONAMESPACE ;-) !
Regards,
Jessie
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: ht
Sorry, did not notice you put a special meaning to +2, +1, etc. You can
put a +2 for me for ":" and a +1 for ":::".
Anyways, I'm tired of discussing this. I'm going to stick to ::: for
now, and if constants are not wanted, I'll then go with ":". I have to
work on some minor details of the patc
For the record, I vote for :::
T_מְשֻׁלָּשׁ_NEKUDOTAYIM
(Sorry, couldn't find a transliteration of "triple")
-Sara
OK, I'll update the table. One moment...
I leave the +2 in and have added a -2 , which I didn't use as I didn't
want to pre-vote anyones comments so clearly. There should be 5 non-
Add to PHP.net docs
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
They all look horrible.
The idea of namespaces scrapped altogether is a good solution. :)
Best,
Mike Robinson
David Zülke wrote:
> If we rule out :::, it should be <- instead.
>
> Foo:>bar:>Baz::getTest()->foo();
>
> vs
>
> Foo<-bar<-Baz::getTest()->foo();
>
> The latter looks better to m
Quite Right, stupid on my part, sorry.
On 11/26/05, Oliver Grätz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The original post HAS an attachment, but here you go ;-)
>
> OLLi
>
>
> First update:
>
> Namespace Operators
>
Very good points Kevin since I was accused of wanting to turn PHP into C++
earlier just for not liking the \ separator. I suppose the person that
selected the -> object operator had the same intentions :)
Bob
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Satur
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 21:41 -0500, Nicolas Bérard Nault wrote:
> +2 to <-, which, in my humble opinion, is more logic than anything else that
> was proposed (as mentionned earlier, it creates a sort of "hierachy").
Hmm, is it really necessary to vote for separators which aren't remotely
technicall
Could I kindly get the grid as an attachment? Gmail messed up the formatting.
On 11/26/05, Eric Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If : is still a viable solution, i'd much rather see that used :P
>
> -- Eric
> --
> Eric Coleman
>
> On Nov 26, 2005, at 9:21 PM, Jessie Hernandez wrote:
>
> > Grea
+2 to <-, which, in my humble opinion, is more logic than anything else that
was proposed (as mentionned earlier, it creates a sort of "hierachy").
\ and %% just seem too extravagant... -2 to them I guess.
Just my 2 cents.
On 11/26/05, Oliver Grätz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK, I'll update
If : is still a viable solution, i'd much rather see that used :P
-- Eric
--
Eric Coleman
On Nov 26, 2005, at 9:21 PM, Jessie Hernandez wrote:
Great work, Oliver! I personally also add a +1 for ":", with the
whitespace restriction in the ternary operator (or just removing
namespace const
How PHP chokes on http://news.php.net/php.internals/18493, some proof of why it's a problem,
http://news.php.net/php.internals/18496, and the "bogus" (yeah, right) bug
report, http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=25987.
As the author of the patch you mentioned, I should reitterate that I don't
think t
OK, I'll update the table. One moment...
I leave the +2 in and have added a -2 , which I didn't use as I didn't
want to pre-vote anyones comments so clearly. There should be 5 non-zero
values (as in ++/+/o/-/--, which is used in project-portfolio-planning),
as one can put some weighting into the an
Great work, Oliver! I personally also add a +1 for ":", with the
whitespace restriction in the ternary operator (or just removing
namespace constants).
I would also add another restriction: you cannot more than one point
for/against (so no +2's or -2's, etc.). It just doesn't make sense (I
mi
OK, you requested for it! *g*
OLLi
Namespace Operators
Name |s| %% | : | ::: | ::< | :< | <- | :> | \ | -> |
\\ | <:: | <: | .. | | | |
(This is my first post to this list and of course just my opinion.)
> Foo%%bar%%Baz::getTest()->foo();
>
> Yes, it is blocky, as is the :: for class scopes.
But it is the same width as *six* colons. I agree that : should be
used even if it means requiring whitespace in some obscure case,
mainly b
Hello Alan,
Alan Knowles wrote:
this is not entirely true:
token : "[WS]+?[WS]+" == conditional if seperater 1
token : "[WS]+:[WS]+" == conditional if seperater 2
token : ":[WS]+" == case/ if ($a == 5): / else: / endif;
token : ":" == namespace stuff...
eg. adding whitespace around the " : " a
David Zülke schrieb:
> Foo:>bar:>Baz::getTest()->foo();
> Foo<-bar<-Baz::getTest()->foo();
> Foo:::bar:::Baz::getTest()->foo();
OK, for completeness:
Foo%%bar%%Baz::getTest()->foo();
Yes, it is blocky, as is the :: for class scopes.
But it's very clear to see where the namespaces are and where t
Jasper Bryant-Greene schrieb:
> Oliver Grätz wrote:
>
>>Oliver Grätz schrieb:
>>
>>> :><::<-<:..
>>
>>Whoops, forgot to add "%%"
>>
>
>
> +1 for <- here. It makes namespace hierarchies resemble diagrams of the
> same hierarchies (like inheritance in UML). It also visually make
this is not entirely true:
token : "[WS]+?[WS]+" == conditional if seperater 1
token : "[WS]+:[WS]+" == conditional if seperater 2
token : ":[WS]+" == case/ if ($a == 5): / else: / endif;
token : ":" == namespace stuff...
eg. adding whitespace around the " : " and declaring that a token,
rather t
This is getting kind of fun to read since we have unicode, perhaps we
should use one of those characters ;) - I'm sure I can find a chinese
character that means namespace for it ;)
define('foo',1);define('bar',2);var_dump(foo<-bar);
personally I would prefer ":" if it is at all feasible,
(chang
On 11/26/05, David Zülke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we rule out :::, it should be <- instead.
I'd hate to see it be <-, looks too much like ->.
Foo<-bar<-Baz::getTest()->foo();
but I agree that ::: should be ruled out all together, its too similar to ::.
I'd almost rather have %% over <-, a
If we rule out :::, it should be <- instead.
Foo:>bar:>Baz::getTest()->foo();
vs
Foo<-bar<-Baz::getTest()->foo();
The latter looks better to me. I'd still prefer
Foo:::bar:::Baz::getTest()->foo();
though.
- David
Am 27.11.2005 um 01:28 schrieb Eric Coleman:
I'd have to vote for either <
I'd have to vote for either <- or :>. I perfer the later.
\ is kinda crappy. Looks weird, as does %%. Looks like a mess.
--
Eric Coleman
On Nov 26, 2005, at 7:17 PM, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:
Oliver Grätz wrote:
Oliver Grätz schrieb:
:><::<-<:..
Whoops, forgot t
Oliver Grätz wrote:
Oliver Grätz schrieb:
:><::<-<:..
Whoops, forgot to add "%%"
+1 for <- here. It makes namespace hierarchies resemble diagrams of the
same hierarchies (like inheritance in UML). It also visually makes
sense, isn't hard to type, and doesn't look like a
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 00:58 +0100, Oliver Grätz wrote:
> - looks OK (Pear%%Date)
You're kidding, right? %% looks nothing but blocky and messy to my human
eyes, and the resemblance to :: stretches the word "tenuous" to its
limit.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscrib
Oliver Grätz schrieb:
> Oliver Grätz schrieb:
>
>> :><::<-<:..
>
>
> Whoops, forgot to add "%%"
I really like "%%":
- not on the PHP operators list
- not on the "Periodic table"
- no associations in my mind other than LaTeX comments
- just two characters
- loosely resembles t
On 27.11.2005 0:40 Uhr, Oliver Grätz wrote:
> Now some requirements:
>
> - needs to work without collisions in the parser
> (seems to kill ":","::","->")
> - should be easily distinguishable from other, similar operators
> (seems to kill ":::")
> - at least one person on earth should like i
Oliver Grätz schrieb:
>:><::<-<:..
Whoops, forgot to add "%%"
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Jessie Hernandez schrieb:
> So far, I have these possibilites:
>
> :::
> :>
> <::
> <-
> <:
OK, now that Marcus threw a PostToLongException('bla'), I'd love to get
back to this.
Other suggestions were
: ::->.. \
Now some requirements:
- needs to work without col
I have to back Sebastian with what he said. Obviously the release methodology
currently applied does NOT work, neither for the project nor the community
around it.
Do it how ever you like - discuss whether it's legal to add new features on
HEAD only or on release branches like Jani said.
BUT:
The proposal is just stupid. It cannot get any more confusing and
inconsistent.
Am 26.11.2005 um 23:29 schrieb Matthew C. Kavanagh:
Don't let the identifiers collide, then.
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 23:23 +0100, David Zülke wrote:
-> is crap because it is used for accessing object methods and
Hello Stanislav,
i know that language it is call ed PerlHyPer :-)
marcus
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 11:06:17 PM, you wrote:
MF>>>Unless I'm missing something these symbols should not conflict with
MF>>>other ones. They also have more a PHP "feel".
> I wonder what "PHP feel" is in bunch of
Don't let the identifiers collide, then.
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 23:23 +0100, David Zülke wrote:
> -> is crap because it is used for accessing object methods and
> properties. Come on, guys. It is not that difficult. Think before you
> write.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing L
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Matt,
bla!
LOL!
--
Jessie
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hello Kevin,
bla!
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 10:35:51 PM, you wrote:
> The only scripts that would break (far from "trillions") here would be
> those where you had a space-less ternary statement comparing two
> constants (NOT namespace constants -- they don't even exist yet), as
> in the fol
Hello Matt,
bla!
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 10:19:18 PM, you wrote:
> Hi, I've been following your conversations all day and think I might
> have a nice idea for the namespace separator idea. Sorry to barge in
> on your conversation but I think the following has value.
> What about somethin
-> is crap because it is used for accessing object methods and
properties. Come on, guys. It is not that difficult. Think before you
write.
- David
Am 26.11.2005 um 23:16 schrieb Matthew C. Kavanagh:
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 00:06 +0200, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
I wonder what "PHP feel" is
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 00:06 +0200, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> I wonder what "PHP feel" is in bunch of special symbols with meaning
> entirely obscure to non-initiated... Why not {@ or <* then? They are nice
> ASCII art too. And there are so many combinations of two special symbols,
> let's find
MF>>Unless I'm missing something these symbols should not conflict with
MF>>other ones. They also have more a PHP "feel".
I wonder what "PHP feel" is in bunch of special symbols with meaning
entirely obscure to non-initiated... Why not {@ or <* then? They are nice
ASCII art too. And there are so
::: is best. :> and <: look like my favorite smilies. No way I could
ever use them in code ;)
- David
Am 26.11.2005 um 22:39 schrieb Jessie Hernandez:
Hi Mat,
Matt Friedman wrote:
Hi, I've been following your conversations all day and think I might
have a nice idea for the namespace separ
Hello,
I as a userland library author, would appreciate namespaces quite a
bit. Here is an idea:
namespace1..class()
$x = new MyApp..MemberOrder();
--
Best regards,
Jasonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 3:52:35 PM, you wrote:
GB>
Hi Mat,
Matt Friedman wrote:
Hi, I've been following your conversations all day and think I might
have a nice idea for the namespace separator idea. Sorry to barge in
on your conversation but I think the following has value.
What about something like <- or <:: or even just <:
It makes sense to
> Hi all,
>
> I have only one caveat with the \ separator, which is that it
> is a little bit too similar to division with /, and can
> result in some confusing code like:
>
> namespace name1 {
> class name2{}
> }
> define('name1', 1);
> define('name2', 2);
>
> $a = new name1\name2;
> $
The only scripts that would break (far from "trillions") here would be
those where you had a space-less ternary statement comparing two
constants (NOT namespace constants -- they don't even exist yet), as
in the following case:
define('foo','odd');
define('bar','even');
$var = rand() % 2 == 1 ? fo
Hi, I've been following your conversations all day and think I might
have a nice idea for the namespace separator idea. Sorry to barge in
on your conversation but I think the following has value.
What about something like <- or <:: or even just <:
It makes sense to me because a namespace is akin
It seems to me that the only usable method of "ring fencing" core
classes for the long term is to use namespaces. However, the namespaces
feature is a fairly large one and obviously will not be in 5.1. We can
discuss its inclusion in 5.2, should it happen to come out, or in PHP
6, but we need
I personally don't like any of these, but I just thought of this one:
"%%". Don't think it'll cause any problems at all, and look at the code:
What do you think? ":::" is more intuitive for me, but "%%" is an
acceptable alternative...
Regards,
Jessie
Greg Beaver wrote:
Hi all,
I have
Hi all,
I have only one caveat with the \ separator, which is that it is a
little bit too similar to division with /, and can result in some
confusing code like:
The same issue exists with all colon based separators (that sounds bad
when read the wrong way...) because of the ternary operator, a
Pierre wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:50:04 -0600
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Beaver) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Pierre, you can do all the #ifdefs you want, this idea does not
>>prevent this :). In addition, the #ifdef has no effect on this idea.
>
>
>
> You do not get the main problem.
>
> - The ifdef
Oops, hit "send" too soon! As you saw, ":-" cannot be used, but ":>"
looks like a possibility. Does anyone see anything wrong with this
sequence? Personally, I'd prefer ":::", as ":>" looks weird, but then
again, it's less typing.
I'll put in whatever sequence is most accepted, except of cours
Hi Oliver,
Oliver Grätz wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky schrieb:
I'd prefer ::: over \ for a namespace operator, even though it is
bordering on the "too-long" limit.
What about these:
PEAR:>Date
PEAR:-Date
OLLi
I thought of these, but it'll break the following examples:
echo ( ( time() % 2
+1 from me. \ looks ugly ... like escaping something:)
On 26/11/05, David Zülke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is funny... I was just about to write a mail and propose ":::".
> So... +1 from me ;)
>
> - David
>
>
> Am 26.11.2005 um 21:10 schrieb Jessie Hernandez:
>
> > All,
> >
> > What would y
Ilia Alshanetsky schrieb:
> I'd prefer ::: over \ for a namespace operator, even though it is
> bordering on the "too-long" limit.
What about these:
PEAR:>Date
PEAR:-Date
OLLi
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I'd prefer ::: over \ for a namespace operator, even though it is
bordering on the "too-long" limit.
Ilia
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
BTW, "::" is out the question (yes, I did try it). It created ambiguity
in the case of calling a function in a namespace and calling a method of
a class in a namespace:
echo a::b::c();
The above can either mean "call function c in namespace b under
namespace a" or "call static method c of cla
This is funny... I was just about to write a mail and propose ":::".
So... +1 from me ;)
- David
Am 26.11.2005 um 21:10 schrieb Jessie Hernandez:
All,
What would you say if I managed to solve this problem, but that the
solution entailed changing the namespace separator to ":::"? The
co
All,
What would you say if I managed to solve this problem, but that the
solution entailed changing the namespace separator to ":::"? The code
below works fine locally.
Is ":::" unacceptable? Personally, I think anything is better than using
"\", and ":::" is not bad for me. If not, which ch
Agreed, the PECL bundle is still very useful to maintain for each release.
(as is the debug pack, so that debugging crashes becomes a possibility
for releases).
--Wez.
On 11/26/05, Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm.
>
> Is this expected to be a long-term change to the way we're making th
Hi,
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:57:45 -0500, in php.internals
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Convissor) wrote:
>If you have some suggestions for documentation improvements, make a patch
>against http://cvs.php.net/phpdoc/en/features/safe-mode.xml, post the
>patch on a website somewhere then open a docume
Scott MacVicar wrote:
> I'd also like to see the fix to ZendEngine2/zend_language_scanner.l
> rolled in to this release, its a very annoying regression.
Yes, that is a problem, and we'll have it fixed in 5.1.1
Ilia
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: h
I'd also like to see the fix to ZendEngine2/zend_language_scanner.l
rolled in to this release, its a very annoying regression.
Scott
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> The attached patch is a possible solution to the date *crisis*, it
> renames the class to PhpDate to avoid any namespace conflicts with pe
Jessie Hernandez wrote:
We have two options here:
1) Do not allow constants in namespaces, just stick to functions and
classes.
2) Forget about this inconsistency.
I understand your point of view, but it seems crazy to me to use "\", an
operator that makes absolutely no sense at all and will
Hi Peter:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:22:32AM +0100, Peter Brodersen wrote:
> I don't think anybody disagrees about this. I'm just curious about
> documenting some recommendations.
If you have some suggestions for documentation improvements, make a patch
against http://cvs.php.net/phpdoc/en/featu
Hi Edin, et al:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:59:16PM +0100, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
>
> PHP
> will produce parse error if you have short tags enabled when trying to
> parse xml, while with short tags disabled and asp tags enabled it parses
> them just fine which makes it sweet for making templating
Sebastian Bergmann schrieb:
> Marcus Boerger schrieb:
>
>>And i'd say that people wanting namespaces are the minority.
>
>
> The majority of people using PHP does not know what namespaces are
> because they were never in a situation in which they needed them, hence
> they do not "want" them.
Hi Chris,
Christian Schneider wrote:
From Jessie's statements I was assuming that ONLY in the ternary case
you would need whitespaces/parens to disambiguate the expression. That
would break way less PHP scripts than, say, a core Date class ;-)
Yes, this is true, but still, I wouldn't be
David Zülke wrote:
> Ever heard of Louis XIV.?
What's his CVS account? ;-)
Ilia
> - David
>
>
> Am 26.11.2005 um 16:39 schrieb Jani Taskinen:
>
>>
>> Pardon, but I'm not french. And open-source does not mean
>> it's democracy. I for one only count the votes of people who
>> actua
Hello Oliver,
Oliver Grätz wrote:
If I read Jessie correctly, the parser will throw an error now if the
usage is unclear with the ternary (a:b:c:d). So the real problem is when
namespace constants are not used but the parser thinks that he's reading
some:
$a = ($b)? c:d;
Are c and d constants
Ever heard of Louis XIV.?
- David
Am 26.11.2005 um 16:39 schrieb Jani Taskinen:
Pardon, but I'm not french. And open-source does not mean
it's democracy. I for one only count the votes of people who
actually do something. If you think that's arrogant, so be it.
--Jani
On S
You'll be a star in a circus.
But internals is certainly not a circus, so please keep your jokes about
yourself.
On 26.11.2005 18:44, Roman Ivanov wrote:
Sara Golemon wrote:
Will your proposal be met with resistence? Certainly. Such an
undertaking represents no small amount of effort and a no
No one project follows the same release methodoly, everyone uses what
works for them and the community around the project.
Ilia
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Marcus Boerger schrieb:
And i'd say that people wanting namespaces are the minority.
The majority of people using PHP does not know what namespaces are
because they were never in a situation in which they needed them, hence
they do not "want" th
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
Like the one you just committed couple of days ago? REVERT! :)
I merged the patch in question to the PHP_5_1 branch *after* PHP 5.1.0
had been rolled and *before* the release cycle for PHP 5.1.1 was
started.
Then you
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:39:34 -0800, in php.internals
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rasmus Lerdorf) wrote:
>I think that is a pretty good idea actually. It's the uid matching that
>is the problem. Having a way to restrict which commands the exec
>functions can execute is sort of a separate thing that is s
Pardon, but I'm not french. And open-source does not mean
it's democracy. I for one only count the votes of people who
actually do something. If you think that's arrogant, so be it.
--Jani
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, David Zülke wrote:
No, please don't. I couldn't reply to your inc
Sara Golemon wrote:
Will your proposal be met with resistence? Certainly. Such an
undertaking represents no small amount of effort and a no less pain when
the final BC break occurs.
No need to break BC! I have a solution. All we need is to introduce
$THAT superglobal object, plus couple of n
Marcus Boerger schrieb:
> And i'd say that people wanting namespaces are the minority.
The majority of people using PHP does not know what namespaces are
because they were never in a situation in which they needed them, hence
they do not "want" them.
--
Sebastian Bergmann
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
> Like the one you just committed couple of days ago? REVERT! :)
I merged the patch in question to the PHP_5_1 branch *after* PHP 5.1.0
had been rolled and *before* the release cycle for PHP 5.1.1 was
started.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebast
Yes, I remember. It was not for fun. I agree that this is a low
priority feature just now while many important issues are to be
solved.
On 26/11/05, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Marian,
>
> have a guess. Di we do this change for fun? Actually we found some nasty
> tricky pro
Sara Golemon wrote:
> Is anyone working on something like this already?
I don't known what you exactly meaning, but I'm playing with 'The Spread
Toolkit' [1] a their PECL interface [2]. I was started research phase of
project only. The goal of my work is to create sessions handling across
mul
Marcus Boerger wrote:
PS: I'd rather have : for namespaces with the whitespace restriction for
? a:x : b:y than the confusing (escaping characters outside of a
string?) backslash.
And kill trillions of php scripts, how funny. Think before writing.
From Jessie's statements I was assuming that
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 14:58 +0100, Christopher Kunz wrote:
> David Zülke wrote:
> > No, please don't. I couldn't reply to your incredibly arrogant messages
> > anymore. After all, someone has to tell you that your "L'Etat, c'est
> > moi" attitude sucks. This is an open-source project, remember?
Sebastian Kugler wrote:
Forcing the use of brackets (instead of whitespaces) only for places
where you want to use namespace constants in ternaries is also
impossible?
exactly
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe, Senior Support Engineer.
MySQL AB, www.mysql.com
--
PHP Internals
David Zülke wrote:
> No, please don't. I couldn't reply to your incredibly arrogant messages
> anymore. After all, someone has to tell you that your "L'Etat, c'est
> moi" attitude sucks. This is an open-source project, remember?
>
Bark up another tree. Or, better yet, why don't you do Jani's wo
Marcus Boerger schrieb:
> Hello Oliver,
>
> it doesn't matter to the compiler whether it is nonsense or not.
> The only thing that matters is whether i can write a correct
> lexer/parser for this without breaking stuff. Guys if we were requiring
> space around the ternary or anything else we don
No, please don't. I couldn't reply to your incredibly arrogant
messages anymore. After all, someone has to tell you that your
"L'Etat, c'est moi" attitude sucks. This is an open-source project,
remember?
- David
Am 26.11.2005 um 14:42 schrieb Jani Taskinen:
Can we PLEASE make this
Can we PLEASE make this list read-only for non-developers?
--Jani
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 13:38 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Christian,
>
> Saturday, November 26, 2005, 1:42:07 AM, you wrote:
> > PS: I'd rather have : for namespaces with the whitespace restriction for
> > ? a:x : b:y than the confusing (escaping characters outside of a
> > string?) backs
Hello Greg,
we previously shipped a lot of pear classes and now we only ship the
installer. Back when we had the pear classes in the main distro i used
to test them even though i didn't use any of them. Right now the only
stuff i test is stuff i really use and that is a single pear class and
tha
On 11/26/05, Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So you're also for letting PEAR dictate what PHP has and not the other
> way around? Somehow this doesn't sound right.
This is not about PEAR dictating, and the PEAR developers are not
those who would suffer from this PHP date cla
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 15:07:15 +0200 (EET)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jani Taskinen) wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> > This ext/date problem is something I will hate to see happen again.
>
> Well, it's totally your own fault. I remember the couple of times
> you were asked t
Hello Marcus,
On 11/26/05, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A lexer splits on tokens while white space is optional. If present it
> allows separation of tokens. Forcing this would make whitespace a token
> which would be very bad. The parser then works on the tokens and doesn't
> see an
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Pierre Joye wrote:
This ext/date problem is something I will hate to see happen again.
Well, it's totally your own fault. I remember the couple of times
you were asked to commit your stuff but you had some other things
to do. Now that someone did the work, you
Hello Joseph,
then why start this discussion over again. Read first, think second. Third
write if there is still a need. Regarding second ever used the '.' operator
in PHP? And you are Zend certified, damn the test is to easy :-)
marcus
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 1:48:35 PM, you wrote:
> wh
Hello Marian,
have a guess. Di we do this change for fun? Actually we found some nasty
tricky problems.
marcus
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 1:48:15 PM, you wrote:
> Hm, strange. It used to work some months ago. My idea is to throw away
> the need of an interface for overrideing [] just like i
Hello Sebastian,
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 1:46:31 PM, you wrote:
> On 11/26/05, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The only thing that matters is whether i can write a correct
>> lexer/parser for this without breaking stuff.
> Im no parser expert at all, so just to be sure that I u
On 11/26/05, Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So you're also for letting PEAR dictate what PHP has and not the other
> way around? Somehow this doesn't sound right.
No, I do not let Derick decided on his own what should be commited in
a last RC. I do not let Derick decides wh
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
