PHP's documentation for foreach states that if you iterate by reference
[foreach ($ii as $i) ...], you should unset $i after the loop. $i
still points to the last element of the array - updating $i or reusing
it will update the last element of the array.
In short, why doesn't PHP
2009/12/27 Mike Wacker mwac...@cornellsun.com:
PHP's documentation for foreach states that if you iterate by reference
[foreach ($ii as $i) ...], you should unset $i after the loop. $i still
points to the last element of the array - updating $i or reusing it will
update the last element of
Chris Stockton wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen ka...@php.net wrote:
But what is every ones input on the matter of attempting to boost
PHP6's development? I'm willing to give my part in whatever I can to
help getting up on the feet to get this ball rolling.
Adam Harvey wrote:
2009/12/27 Mike Wacker mwac...@cornellsun.com:
PHP's documentation for foreach states that if you iterate by reference
[foreach ($ii as $i) ...], you should unset $i after the loop. $i still
points to the last element of the array - updating $i or reusing it will
update the
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Mike Wacker mwac...@cornellsun.com wrote:
Adam Harvey wrote:
2009/12/27 Mike Wacker mwac...@cornellsun.com:
PHP's documentation for foreach states that if you iterate by reference
[foreach ($ii as $i) ...], you should unset $i after the loop. $i still
Hi!
As some already know, I'm using the holidays to prepare a proposal for
error handling in extensions
(https://saintcyr.oeri.ch/trac/php-intl/wiki/ErrorHandling).
Digging through many zend internals, I wonder if there is a possibility
to use a common ancestor class without cluttering
We can't just randomly reset variables based on their scope in this one
specific case. If we are going to fix this, it should be done by
introducing a way to do proper local scope variables. Resetting a
reference simply because it is convenient in this one case would be
completely inconsistent.
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
We can't just randomly reset variables based on their scope in this one
specific case. If we are going to fix this, it should be done by
introducing a way to do proper local scope variables. Resetting a
reference simply because it is convenient in this one case would be
Hi,
Since LXR hasn't been updating since the shift to SVN, I've been
investigating bringing it back. Today, though, I came across OpenGrok
which appears to be a far more modern implementation of the same thing,
using Lucene as the back end. I've set up a test installation of it at
hi,
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Michael Maclean
mich...@no-surprises.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
Since LXR hasn't been updating since the shift to SVN, I've been
investigating bringing it back. Today, though, I came across OpenGrok which
appears to be a far more modern implementation of the same
Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote in message
news:4b3785ac.2000...@lerdorf.com...
We can't just randomly reset variables based on their scope in this one
specific case. If we are going to fix this, it should be done by
introducing a way to do proper local scope variables. Resetting a
jvlad wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote in message
news:4b3785ac.2000...@lerdorf.com...
We can't just randomly reset variables based on their scope in this one
specific case. If we are going to fix this, it should be done by
introducing a way to do proper local scope variables.
On Dec 27, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Michael Maclean wrote:
Hi,
Since LXR hasn't been updating since the shift to SVN, I've been
investigating bringing it back. Today, though, I came across OpenGrok which
appears to be a far more modern implementation of the same thing, using
Lucene as the back
No chance. No .ini settings, and I still maintain it is inconsistent.
So, if I write this:
$a = array(1);
$b = 0;
$c = $b;
$c = $a[0];
Would you agree that $b should be 1 at this point? If so, just because
I rewrite that code like this:
$a = array(1);
$b = 0;
$c = $b;
foreach($a
jvlad wrote:
$a = array(1);
$b = 0;
$c = $b;
foreach($a as $c);
Now you are arguing that $b should not be 1?
The two pieces of code are identical
It's just a nightmare example. I wonder have you ever see anything like this
in real life?
Could you please let me see it too, for example
jvlad wrote:
Meanwhile I see that php core developers and Evangelist propose the way of
evolving difficulties.
For example, I used split() for many many years. Now it throws a warning and
it appears
that this function will be removed soon. I have to rewrite all my scripts
and replace
16 matches
Mail list logo
