On Apr 2, 2011, at 15:24 , Jordi Boggiano wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Jacob Oettinger wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 2011, at 21:10 , Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/31/2011 10:58 AM, Martin Scotta wrote:
>>>> I think it's time to stop
On Mar 31, 2011, at 21:10 , Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 03/31/2011 10:58 AM, Martin Scotta wrote:
>> I think it's time to stop thinking in terms of "functions" and move
>> forward to "abstractions"
>>
>> $s1 = 'string';
>> $s1->contains($s2);
>>
>> $s1->indexOf($s2) === strpos($s1, $s2);
>>
>>
On 08/06/2010, at 12.41, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 12:23 +0200, Jacob Oettinger wrote:
>> Would it be equally simple to allow the syntax below?
>>
>> $result = new ResultMaker()->getIt();
>
> does this mean
>
>$result = n
Hi
This is great.
Would it be equally simple to allow the syntax below?
$result = new ResultMaker()->getIt();
and
$resultOfFunc = returnsFunc()();
I think would add consistency because it would allow direct operations on any
returned value. I agree that it is not the most reader friendly cod
On 21/04/2010, at 16.03, Stan Vassilev wrote:
>
> Ahem. We all secretly know how it should've been from the very start.
> Pseudo-methods for the basic types.
>
> $array->merge($array2);
> $string->len();
>
Yes. Maybe implemented so that they can be called like functions in a namespace
for ea
ision on how to move forward.
I would like to organize/collect/manage the information, but I need help in
finding the needed information.
Is this a good idea?
Is it silly to have someone, that has not been involved in the earlier unicode
discussions, trying to summarize on them?
Regards, Ja
e, that has not been involved in the earlier unicode
discussions, trying to summarize on them?
Regards, Jacob Oettinger
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
