Agreed!
Zeev
At 23:56 06/08/2006, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Hey,
Coming into this a bit late (took me a while to read the gazillion emails on
the topic.
First of all, I agree that we can find some middle ground which should make
everyone happy.
I don't think that making interfaces have additional
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Agreed!
Here as well...
Derick
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Dmitry,
We seem to be on entirely different sides of the fence.
I've answered your comments below.
If I have not explained myself well enough, then so be it, I'll abide
by the decision of the developers.
I DO thank you for the consideration that you've given and I hope that
just because I
-Original Message-
From: Richard Quadling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 11:52 AM
To: Dmitry Stogov; PHP Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Supporting version specific INI files
as well as SAPI specific INI files.
Dmitry,
We seem to be
Hello Andi,
Sunday, August 6, 2006, 10:56:18 PM, you wrote:
Hey,
Coming into this a bit late (took me a while to read the gazillion emails on
the topic.
First of all, I agree that we can find some middle ground which should make
everyone happy.
I don't think that making interfaces have
On 07/08/06, Dmitry Stogov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you setup IIS to run PHP from share?
Then you have to record path to php in IIS metabse.
How is it different from storing path in the registry?
We have many applications here which are loaded from a central app
server. Both GUI and CLI
Hello Dmitry,
Monday, August 7, 2006, 10:25:48 AM, you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Richard Quadling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 11:52 AM
To: Dmitry Stogov; PHP Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Supporting version specific INI files
as
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:14:01 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Boerger) wrote:
Hello Andi,
Hello,
Sunday, August 6, 2006, 10:56:18 PM, you wrote:
Hey,
Coming into this a bit late (took me a while to read the gazillion
emails on the topic.
First of all, I agree that we can find
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:16:05 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pierre) wrote:
thinkingOh thinking and documenting is forbidden - i
see/thinking
PHP thinks for me now, and if it is about documenting, then I don't
any interfaces and all the other additions, I can document everything.
Sorry, I mean I
Hello Pierre,
Monday, August 7, 2006, 11:36:57 AM, you wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:16:05 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pierre) wrote:
thinkingOh thinking and documenting is forbidden - i
see/thinking
PHP thinks for me now, and if it is about documenting, then I don't
any interfaces and
Hello,
On 8/7/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Pierre,
Monday, August 7, 2006, 11:36:57 AM, you wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:16:05 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pierre) wrote:
thinkingOh thinking and documenting is forbidden - i
see/thinking
PHP thinks for me now, and if
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Pierre,
Monday, August 7, 2006, 11:36:57 AM, you wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:16:05 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pierre) wrote:
thinkingOh thinking and documenting is forbidden - i
see/thinking
PHP thinks for me now, and if it is about documenting, then I don't
Marcus,
A few points:
- There's nothing wrong about being lazy, especially as PHP's main
selling point is that it's easy to use (or in other words - also
suitable for people who have better things to do than mess with the language).
- I can assure you that there are a hell of a lot more
Hello,
On 8/7/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
class Foo {
public interface function myFoo($x) { echo $x; } // strict method
signature enforced
}
class Bar extends Foo {
public function myFoo() { echo bar; } // this would be E_FATAL
}
class Qux extends Foo
Hello Zeev,
Monday, August 7, 2006, 12:02:29 PM, you wrote:
Marcus,
A few points:
- There's nothing wrong about being lazy, especially as PHP's main
selling point is that it's easy to use (or in other words - also
suitable for people who have better things to do than mess with the
Hello Jochem,
Monday, August 7, 2006, 12:15:51 PM, you wrote:
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Pierre,
Monday, August 7, 2006, 11:36:57 AM, you wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:16:05 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pierre) wrote:
thinkingOh thinking and documenting is forbidden - i
see/thinking
Hello,
On 8/7/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Compromises are fine. Not implementing certain stuff is fine. Violating
most basic expectations is different. And adding inconsistencies nobody
can understand is imo wrong. I just feel very bad with this movement.
Nobody can
Pierre wrote:
Hello,
On 8/7/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
class Foo {
public interface function myFoo($x) { echo $x; } // strict
method signature enforced
}
class Bar extends Foo {
public function myFoo() { echo bar; } // this would be
E_FATAL
}
On 8/7/06, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pierre wrote:
Hello,
On 8/7/06, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
class Foo {
public interface function myFoo($x) { echo $x; } // strict
method signature enforced
}
class Bar extends Foo {
public function
On Aug 4, 2006, at 3:23 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
- Add a new flag to methods (at the implementation level) that will
allow to flag them as 'strict'
Hello,
Would exposing this flag to the user at method level get a bit verbose
for those who want to use it? Perhaps a class level flag for
Jeff Moore wrote:
On Aug 4, 2006, at 3:23 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
- Add a new flag to methods (at the implementation level) that will
allow to flag them as 'strict'
Hello,
Would exposing this flag to the user at method level get a bit verbose
for those who want to use it? Perhaps a
Hi,
After we recently experienced an XSS through what can only be described
as IE's shocking attempt at determining the mime type from the data and
ignoring what the server sent we decided to look into implementing
HTTP-only cookies. We know it's not a solution for preventing XSS, but
adding
Seems like a good idea to me. If no one objects I'll apply this
patch, thanks Scott.
Ilia Alshanetsky
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Scott MacVicar wrote:
Hi,
After we recently experienced an XSS through what can only be described
as IE's shocking attempt at determining the mime type from the data and
ignoring what the server sent we decided to look into implementing
HTTP-only cookies. We know it's not a solution for
On Mon, August 7, 2006 9:53 am, Scott MacVicar wrote:
After we recently experienced an XSS through what can only be
described
as IE's shocking attempt at determining the mime type from the data
and
ignoring what the server sent
In case anybody finds this in a Google search, I have found that
As to the syntax I prefer not to add a new kind of syntax ala #foo. We
introduced declare() {} a few years ago exactly for these kind of cases.
We
designed it so that it'd be completely extensible and functionality like
this could be added.
I agree that this is the type of thing that
On Mon, August 7, 2006 8:25 am, Jeff Moore wrote:
On Aug 4, 2006, at 3:23 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
- Add a new flag to methods (at the implementation level) that will
allow to flag them as 'strict'
Would exposing this flag to the user at method level get a bit verbose
for those who want
Hello Richard,
strict would meann a new keyword which most likely breaks a bunch of
applications. It would be much easier to do:
class Foo implements Strict { }
and for the methods only stick with 'interface'.
best regards
marcus
Monday, August 7, 2006, 8:29:09 PM, you wrote:
On Mon,
Just a note -- having implemented and deployed this (in userspace, not
in php itself) -- setting the http_only flag kills the cookie in IE on
the Mac. One would hope no one is using such a thing anymore, but I
thought I'd point it out, and I'm definately in favor of the change.
Maybe it will get
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Pierre wrote:
Compromises are fine. Not implementing certain stuff is fine. Violating
most basic expectations is different. And adding inconsistencies nobody
can understand is imo wrong. I just feel very bad with this movement.
Nobody can understand? Is it not obvious
Quoting steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just a note -- having implemented and deployed this (in userspace, not
in php itself) -- setting the http_only flag kills the cookie in IE on
the Mac. One would hope no one is using such a thing anymore, but I
thought I'd point it out, and I'm definately in
On 8/8/06, Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Pierre wrote:
Compromises are fine. Not implementing certain stuff is fine. Violating
most basic expectations is different. And adding inconsistencies nobody
can understand is imo wrong. I just feel very
32 matches
Mail list logo
