1.01 eq 1.1
Could you explain this one to me? In every versioning system I've ever
used, 1.1 would be greater than 1.01, not equal.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com
wrote:
Hi!
For example, I was not the only one who found it odd that 1.0 is
Rick Bird wrote:
My name is Rick.. I done some light work on documentation side of things,
but I had a question because I've been working a lot with the Symfony
framework lately. Some in the Symfony irc room seem to be under the
impression that short_open_tags is to be deprecated in php6.
Yeah, that would definitely be a bug.
On Jul 21, 2012 7:23 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
1.01 eq 1.1
Could you explain this one to me? In every versioning system I've ever
used, 1.1 would be greater than 1.01, not equal.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Stas Malyshev
I also think ? is good. Consider:
? if (user.loggedin) ?
a href=/logoutLogout/a
? elseif ?
? href=/loginLog in/a | a href=/registerRegister/a
? endif ?
With ?php, it's less readable (it's not so bad, but I certainly prefer the
former.)
?php if (user.loggedin) ?
a href=/logoutLogout/a
?php
On 07/20/2012 05:16 PM, Rick Bird wrote:
Hi,
My name is Rick.. I done some light work on documentation side of things,
but I had a question because I've been working a lot with the Symfony
framework lately. Some in the Symfony irc room seem to be under the
impression that short_open_tags
hi Laruence,
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Laruence larue...@php.net wrote:
Hi:
Call for voting for Allow use T_AS in closure use statement,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/useas#voting
any comment will be appreciated.
Well, that's why the discussions period is required.
Please close
On 2012-07-21 12:19, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
So when I have a function that has a two- or multi-part result then -
instead of having one part as the return value and the others by
reference - in Python I'd return a tuple.
PHP functions can return arrays and some do - e.g. pathinfo(). But
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi Laruence,
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Laruence larue...@php.net wrote:
Hi:
Call for voting for Allow use T_AS in closure use statement,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/useas#voting
any comment will be
hi!
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk wrote:
Of course that would break backwards compatibility, which kind of defeats
the purpose of having a standardized version-number comparison standard.
x.y.z is standard, x.y not. I keep asking package maintainers to use
What? x, x.y, x.y.z, x.y.z.a, etc are all valid.
1, 1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.2.3, in that order, would be valid.
On Jul 21, 2012 10:07 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi!
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk
wrote:
Of course that would break backwards
hi,
No, I mean version with 1.0 and not 1.0.0 are not. They are just not
correct and confusing, as you noticed.
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Andrew Faulds ajf...@googlemail.com wrote:
What? x, x.y, x.y.z, x.y.z.a, etc are all valid.
1, 1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.2.3, in that order, would be valid.
1, 1.0, 1.0.0, 1.0.0.0, 1.0.0.0.0 etc. are not confusing, they are
completely correct, and all mean the same thing.
If I publish MyApp v1, v1.0 and v1.0.0 are the same.
On Jul 21, 2012 10:32 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
No, I mean version with 1.0 and not 1.0.0 are not.
On 21 Jul, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
1.01 eq 1.1
Could you explain this one to me? In every versioning system I've ever
used, 1.1 would be greater than 1.01, not equal.
Because 01 is just a padded version of 1, probably used to make it easier for
To follow that up, this is how version numbers are sorted:
1, 1.0, 1a, 1.0.1, 1.0.1a, 1.0.1.1, 2, 2.0.1
The first number is always most significant, followed by each number after
it (not necessarily single digits, ReactOS has 0.3.14 for instance), then
finally any letters at the end.
Equivalence
If you think 1.1 =/= 1.01 you're sure using some weird version numbers.
Only 1.0.1 would be smaller.
Has anyone seen these weird version ordering schemes in practise? On any
major projects of note?
On Jul 21, 2012 10:51 AM, Tjerk Meesters tjerk.meest...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 Jul, 2012, at
hi!
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
Okay, well... the main pieces of feedback I'd give on it then is to not
change the behavior of the '!' modifier. That's bad BC.
Fully agreed, if we can avoid the introduction of yet another set of
#ifdef, then I'm all
Thank you Matthew. I had the feeling that my proposal was dismissed a bit
quickly by some people, while I think it's how object-oriented languages
should handle attributes' visibility.
I still think it's very simple and elegant, and more coherent in some
situations (those situations targeted by
On 21/07/12 11:32, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi,
No, I mean version with 1.0 and not 1.0.0 are not. They are just not
correct and confusing, as you noticed.
Then Linux 2.6.39 shouldn't have been followed by Linux 3.0
For me, 1.0 and 1.0.0 are the same thing.
It's fine if x.y is not a valid
Maybe it should have an optional extra parameter specifying comparison
mode? (I.e. version formatting)
On Jul 21, 2012 1:08 PM, Ángel González keis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/07/12 11:32, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi,
No, I mean version with 1.0 and not 1.0.0 are not. They are just not
correct
Em Sat, 21 Jul 2012 13:13:23 +0200, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
escreveu:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
Okay, well... the main pieces of feedback I'd give on it then is to not
change the behavior of the '!' modifier. That's bad BC.
Fully
hi Gustavo,
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt wrote:
Em Sat, 21 Jul 2012 13:13:23 +0200, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
escreveu:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
Okay, well... the main pieces of feedback I'd give
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 10:32 +1000, David Muir wrote:
What about extending the array typehint include ArrayAccess, and extend
the Traversable typehint to include arrays?
For that all (internal) consumers of Traversable have to work with
arrays. i.e. ?php new IteratorIterator([1,2,3,4,5]); ?.
-Original Message-
From: Nikita Popov [mailto:nikita@gmail.com]
Sent: 20 July 2012 21:46
To: Nikita Popov
Cc: PHP internals
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: Generators in PHP
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Nikita Popov
nikita@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi internals!
In the
using this particular version-numbering scheme, 1.01 is equal to 1.1 - I
don't think that's a bug, because the version-numbers in this
version-numbering scheme are integers, not decimals.
so I believe this is in fact as correct as it can be, since numbers like
01 should not really be used in this
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Andrew Faulds ajf...@googlemail.comwrote:
If you think 1.1 =/= 1.01 you're sure using some weird version numbers.
Only 1.0.1 would be smaller.
Has anyone seen these weird version ordering schemes in practise? On any
major projects of note?
*raises his hand*
Your commit reminded me that we should probably look into providing
access to the low-level monotonic clock.
eg. CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW described here:
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man2/clock_getres.2.html
There is a monotonic clock library here that should help with
26 matches
Mail list logo
