On 10/30/2010 10:01 AM, Richard Quadling wrote:
> On 30 October 2010 02:51, Chad Emrys wrote:
>> What is in a name anyway?
> Would a T_PAAMAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM by any other name make a difference?
>
>
To provide a counterargument, it certainly would. I don't consider
myself an inexperienced PHP devel
to do to get this
patch included? The maintainers of the SNMP extension have been silent
so far. I would love to make this patch fly, but if it's just not going
to happen then that's fine with me too.
Regards,
Jorrit Kronjee
On 10/11/2010 04:37 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:
>
> H
Dear list,
A few weeks ago I submitted the attached patch to this list. Apart from
some initial comments I've not heard if the patch is good enough now to
be added to the PHP sources.
Is there anything still missing?
Regards,
Jorrit Kronjee
Index: ext/snmp/tests/snmpgetnext_error
On 09/21/2010 08:13 AM, Jorrit Kronjee wrote:
>
> Shall I just write a couple and include that in a new patch?
So I wrote a couple of tests:
Running 8 tests
PASS Test function snmpget() by calling it with its expected
arguments[snmpget_basic.phpt]
PASS Test function snmpget() by calling i
On 09/21/2010 01:36 AM, Chris Stockton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Michael Maclean wrote:
>> On 20/09/10 20:46, Jorrit Kronjee wrote:
>>> Dear list,
>>>
>>> To better reflect the behavior of the snmpget command that comes with
&
into one request. The patch is backwards compatible, as in,
snmpget()/snmpgetnext() will still accept a string and return a string
in that case.
For completeness' sake, I've also added snmpgetoid() and
snmpgetnextoid() as the counterparts for snmpwalkoid().
Regards,
Jorrit Kronjee
