On Monday, December 20, 2010 5:21:08 pm Stefan Marr wrote:
> Hi Larry:
>
> On 20 Dec 2010, at 17:04, la...@garfieldtech.com wrote:
> > Perhaps if both traits use the same variable name, visibility, *and*
> > default value then there is no error?
>
> There is not fatal error, however, currently th
Hi Larry:
On 20 Dec 2010, at 17:04, la...@garfieldtech.com wrote:
> Perhaps if both traits use the same variable name, visibility, *and* default
> value then there is no error?
There is not fatal error, however, currently there is E_STRICT notice.
> I suspect this issue dovetails with the Trait
December-18-10 12:07 PM Daniel Convissor wrote:
> Completely disabling POST is something that is probably best done
> via web server configurations. Doing this at the
> applicaiton/programming layer seems like a kludge.
No offence, but I'm still waiting for someone with 2 breadsticks stuck up th
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Convissor [mailto:dani...@analysisandsolutions.com]
>
> Hi James:
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 05:08:38PM +, James Butler wrote:
>> What about people on shared hosting?
>
> One option may be to put a in an .htaccess file.
My thought is that though th
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Michael Morris wrote:
> I'm not opposed to using a bitfield, but it's going to be tricky to do
> because there are two settings that want to be 0. Backwards compatibility
> needs to have the 0 setting both for the function calls and the ini setting.
> However, the
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:41:29 -, Matthew Turland
wrote:
Thanks to comments from Gustavo Lopes, I've removed the removeCommon
method from my patch. I honestly wish I could say why I didn't realize
his point before I submitted the patch in the first place, but I
appreciate the feedback. I've
Sorry to flood the list, but I noticed that I left a stray reference
to removeCommon in my amended patch. Attached the fixed version. My
profound apologies.
Regards,
Matthew Turland
Index: ext/spl/tests/SplObjectStorage_removeUncommon_basic.phpt
===
Thanks to comments from Gustavo Lopes, I've removed the removeCommon
method from my patch. I honestly wish I could say why I didn't realize
his point before I submitted the patch in the first place, but I
appreciate the feedback. I've attached the amended patch files, which
include only the removeU
On 12/20/10 7:53 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
On 2010-12-19, Stefan Marr wrote:
On 19 Dec 2010, at 17:22, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
Exactly. I wouldn't default to public on conflicts, though -- just with
the highest declared visibility (e.g., if one trait defines as private
and the
I'm not opposed to using a bitfield, but it's going to be tricky to do
because there are two settings that want to be 0. Backwards compatibility
needs to have the 0 setting both for the function calls and the ini setting.
However, the no tags mode also wants to be a 0 logically.
The best I can co
On 2010-12-19, Stefan Marr wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2010, at 17:22, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> > Exactly. I wouldn't default to public on conflicts, though -- just with
> > the highest declared visibility (e.g., if one trait defines as private
> > and the other as protected, protected wins).
> I a
11 matches
Mail list logo
