Re: [PHP-DEV] SVN Revisions

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 4:59 AM, Lonny K wrote: > I have SVN public access and I'm trying to find the revisions that were > made > in http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=42838 > There are no tags on array.c for this bug and the diff link that was posted > in the report no longer exists. > I cannot see

[PHP-DEV] SVN Revisions

I have SVN public access and I'm trying to find the revisions that were made in http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=42838 There are no tags on array.c for this bug and the diff link that was posted in the report no longer exists. I cannot see a way to tell what changes were made to what files for this b

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/ branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS branches/PHP_5_2/ext/filter/logical_filters.c branches/PHP_5_3/NEWS branches/PHP_5_3/ext/filter/logical_filters.c trunk/ext/filter/

On 04/02/2010 06:25 PM, Jared Williams wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com] >> Sent: 03 April 2010 01:20 >> To: Jared Williams >> Cc: internals@lists.php.net >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/ >> branches/PHP_5_2/N

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/ branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS branches/PHP_5_2/ext/filter/logical_filters.c branches/PHP_5_3/NEWS branches/PHP_5_3/ext/filter/logical_filters.c trunk/ext/filter/

> -Original Message- > From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com] > Sent: 03 April 2010 01:20 > To: Jared Williams > Cc: internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/ > branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS > branches/PHP_5_2/ext/filter/logical_filters.c > b

Re: [PHP-DEV] On constructors: BC Break and Class compiler Improvements

Hi! So, I think we've got consensus about not having class-named ctors in namespaced classes in trunk, and unless I hear some screams I'll commit the patch early next week. What about the 5.3? (BTW, I don't see any difference between 5.3.0 and anything later, could anybody point it to me?)

Re: [PHP-DEV] Named Parameters

On 2010-04-02, at 9:02 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > I think they'd allow to manage complex parameter sets more efficiently than > with those $options arrays. But that'd probably require changing the way how > parameters are passed, since the stack won't work too good anymore for it. FWIW, n

Re: [PHP-DEV] Named Parameters

Hi! I really doubt named parameters would have much of an impact on anything, but I'd be willing to consider it if a clean implementation was to show up. I think they'd allow to manage complex parameter sets more efficiently than with those $options arrays. But that'd probably require changin

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/ branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS branches/PHP_5_2/ext/filter/logical_filters.c branches/PHP_5_3/NEWS branches/PHP_5_3/ext/filter/logical_filters.c trunk/ext/filter/

Rasmus Lerdorf: > The ABNF for an HTML5 valid email field is: > > 1*( atext / "." ) "@" ldh-str 1*( "." ldh-str ) > > which means there must be a . in the domain part, so HTML5 doesn't think > a...@b is valid either. The left-hand side looks wrong though. It seems > to me it should be: > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Named Parameters

On 04/02/2010 02:17 PM, GM wrote: > What do you guys think? I really want PHP 6 to rock and have an even > better reputation among businesses, programmers, etc. I really doubt named parameters would have much of an impact on anything, but I'd be willing to consider it if a clean implementation was

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/ branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS branches/PHP_5_2/ext/filter/logical_filters.c branches/PHP_5_3/NEWS branches/PHP_5_3/ext/filter/logical_filters.c trunk/ext/filter/

On 04/02/2010 04:47 PM, Jared Williams wrote: > Would make sense. Especially considering HTML5's current validation > rules of emails is something different again. > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/states-of- > the-type-attribute.html#e-mail-state > > Having a mismat

Re: [PHP-DEV] php and multithreading (additional arguments)

Hi! I think that if we were ever to implement threading we would be best off to enable spawning worker threads that have their own context with no shared data (and therefore no requirement for locking). We could then have a message passing API between the threads. No shared data requires quite

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/ branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS branches/PHP_5_2/ext/filter/logical_filters.c branches/PHP_5_3/NEWS branches/PHP_5_3/ext/filter/logical_filters.c trunk/ext/filter/

> -Original Message- > From: Ferenc Kovacs [mailto:tyr...@gmail.com] > Sent: 02 April 2010 23:09 > To: Rasmus Lerdorf > Cc: Sean Coates; internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/ > branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS > branches/PHP_5_2/ext/filter/logical_filt

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/ branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS branches/PHP_5_2/ext/filter/logical_filters.c branches/PHP_5_3/NEWS branches/PHP_5_3/ext/filter/logical_filters.c trunk/ext/filte

Why not define multiple filters? I did that solution with more than one framework. There are cases when you need to validate the email of your remote users (eg. you want to restrict j...@localhost), and there are some cases, when you want to go all the way: validate the email by format, check the d

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/ branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS branches/PHP_5_2/ext/filter/logical_filters.c branches/PHP_5_3/NEWS branches/PHP_5_3/ext/filter/logical_filters.c trunk/ext/filter/

On 04/02/2010 02:37 PM, Sean Coates wrote: >> If you look closely you will see that all 5 validators in the chart >> reject single-word domains. > > Note that this regex also considers anyth...@localhost to be an invalid email > address. > I hear your point about the difference between a local ma

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/ branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS branches/PHP_5_2/ext/filter/logical_filters.c branches/PHP_5_3/NEWS branches/PHP_5_3/ext/filter/logical_filters.c trunk/ext/filter/

> If you look closely you will see that all 5 validators in the chart > reject single-word domains. Note that this regex also considers anyth...@localhost to be an invalid email address. I hear your point about the difference between a local machine named "va" and the "va." TLD, but I doubt I'm

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/ branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS branches/PHP_5_2/ext/filter/logical_filters.c branches/PHP_5_3/NEWS branches/PHP_5_3/ext/filter/logical_filters.c trunk/ext/filter/logi

I should also mention that most of the popular validators I checked came to the same conclusion. There is a chart here: http://www.dominicsayers.com/isemail/results.php If you look closely you will see that all 5 validators in the chart reject single-word domains. -Rasmus -- PHP Internals - P

[PHP-DEV] Named Parameters

I was hoping to start some discussion regarding named parameters. I'm sorry if it's frowned upon to re-post or re-paste something, but I'm thinking that perhaps my email (with the subject Re: Hi) was overlooked on the list in whatever readers, so I'm going to post it again, this time with a

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/ branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS branches/PHP_5_2/ext/filter/logical_filters.c branches/PHP_5_3/NEWS branches/PHP_5_3/ext/filter/logical_filters.c trunk/ext/filter/logi

On 04/02/2010 01:22 PM, Martin Jansen wrote: > On 02.04.10 19:56, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >> rasmus Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:56:37 + >> >> Revision: http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=297350 >> >> Log: >> Update the FILTER_VALIDATE_EMAIL filter to fix bu

Re: [PHP-DEV] On constructors: BC Break and Class compiler Improvements

Hi! class Filter { public function __construct() { /* construct stuff */ } public function filter($value) { /* return filtered */ } } Produces: PHP Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class Zend\Filter\Filter in [snip file] on line [snip line] I just checked - this c

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/ branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS branches/PHP_5_2/ext/filter/logical_filters.c branches/PHP_5_3/NEWS branches/PHP_5_3/ext/filter/logical_filters.c trunk/ext/filte

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Martin Jansen wrote: > On 02.04.10 19:56, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >> rasmus                                   Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:56:37 + >> >> Revision: http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=297350 >> >> Log: >> Update the FILTER_VALIDATE_EMAIL filter

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/ branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS branches/PHP_5_2/ext/filter/logical_filters.c branches/PHP_5_3/NEWS branches/PHP_5_3/ext/filter/logical_filters.c trunk/ext/filter/logi

On 02.04.10 19:56, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > rasmus Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:56:37 + > > Revision: http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=297350 > > Log: > Update the FILTER_VALIDATE_EMAIL filter to fix bug #49576 I'm referring to the following comment:

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bug #49192

Hannes Magnusson wrote: On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 00:06, Johannes Mueller wrote: Can someone please re-open bug http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=49192 . For me it's not possible, even (or because?) i'm the owner of the bug. Your are not the owner on that bug. You didn't even comment on it. I mad

RE: [PHP-DEV] On constructors: BC Break and Class compiler Improvements

> -Original Message- > From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:s...@zend.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 12:34 PM > To: Pierre Joye > Cc: Ralph Schindler; internals > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] On constructors: BC Break and Class compiler > Improvements > > Hi! > > > Well, I think the question

Re: [PHP-DEV] php and multithreading (additional arguments)

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote: > Hi, > > I think that if we were ever to implement threading we would be best off > to enable spawning worker threads that have their own context with no > shared data (and therefore no requirement for locking). We could then > have a message p

RE: [PHP-DEV] php and multithreading (additional arguments)

> -Original Message- > From: Ferenc Kovacs [mailto:tyr...@gmail.com] > Sent: 02 April 2010 08:40 > To: Lester Caine > Cc: PHP internals > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] php and multithreading (additional arguments) > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Lester Caine > wrote: > > > Jille Timmer

Re: [PHP-DEV] re-open bug

Thank you Tyrael On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Derick Rethans wrote: > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > > > Hi, could somebody check this "bug" for me: > > http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=51463 > > I was a little bit hasty about opening and closing it, but somehow I feel > > like it

Re: [PHP-DEV] re-open bug

On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > Hi, could somebody check this "bug" for me: > http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=51463 > I was a little bit hasty about opening and closing it, but somehow I feel > like it shouldn't be behave like this. Done Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xde

[PHP-DEV] re-open bug

Hi, could somebody check this "bug" for me: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=51463 I was a little bit hasty about opening and closing it, but somehow I feel like it shouldn't be behave like this. Tyrael

Re: [PHP-DEV] DTrace RFC

On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 14:37 +0100, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote: > Also, what are the status of DTrace support on Windows for this patch? DTrace is only available on MacOS, FreeBSD and MacOS. Maybe it can be made working with SystemTap on Linux, they try to be compatible in their APIs. Windows has n

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bug #49192

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 00:06, Johannes Mueller wrote: > Can someone please re-open bug http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=49192 . For me > it's not possible, even (or because?) i'm the owner of the bug. Your are not the owner on that bug. You didn't even comment on it. > It still exists in 5.3.2 (W

Re: [PHP-DEV] php and multithreading (additional arguments)

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > Jille Timmermans wrote: > >> Op 2-4-2010 7:16, Andi Gutmans schreef >> >>> I think that if we were ever to implement threading we would be best off >>> to enable spawning worker threads that have their own context with no >>> shared data (and

Re: [PHP-DEV] php and multithreading (additional arguments)

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Jille Timmermans wrote: > Op 2-4-2010 7:16, Andi Gutmans schreef > > I think that if we were ever to implement threading we would be best off >> to enable spawning worker threads that have their own context with no >> shared data (and therefore no requirement for

Re: [PHP-DEV] php and multithreading (additional arguments)

Jille Timmermans wrote: Op 2-4-2010 7:16, Andi Gutmans schreef I think that if we were ever to implement threading we would be best off to enable spawning worker threads that have their own context with no shared data (and therefore no requirement for locking). We could then have a message passi

Re: [PHP-DEV] php and multithreading (additional arguments)

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > > Hi! > > > >> Eve Online in Stackless Python > >> fmspy.org with stackless python > >> etc. > > > > I don't know how python does it but PHP has a lot of global c

Re: [PHP-DEV] php and multithreading (additional arguments)

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Dennis Hotson wrote: > I use pcntl_fork() for writing parallel multi-process applications and it > works pretty well. > Also, you can use shared memory queues to pass messages between processes > (ie msg_get_queue()). > > I wrote a little proof of concept library a

Re: [PHP-DEV] php and multithreading (additional arguments)

Op 2-4-2010 7:16, Andi Gutmans schreef I think that if we were ever to implement threading we would be best off to enable spawning worker threads that have their own context with no shared data (and therefore no requirement for locking). We could then have a message passing API between the thread