On 26 August 2010 16:38, Patrick ALLAERT patrick.alla...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/8/26 Richard Quadling rquadl...@gmail.com:
With all of I thought this sort of stuff was for Friday's only
comments being made, I think
E_ALL_AND_I_REALLY_REALLY_REALLY_DO_MEAN_ALL would be the most useful.
Sorry
On 25 August 2010 23:51, Ferenc Kovacs i...@tyrael.hu wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky i...@prohost.org wrote:
Stas,
Having E_FORTY_TWO would be super-useful ;-)
offtopic:
shouldn't be that E_ANSWER_TO_LIFE_UNIVERSE_AND_EVERYTHING?
maybe we should set E_ALL for
2010/8/26 Richard Quadling rquadl...@gmail.com:
With all of I thought this sort of stuff was for Friday's only
comments being made, I think
E_ALL_AND_I_REALLY_REALLY_REALLY_DO_MEAN_ALL would be the most useful.
Sorry to contradict you, but the most useful would be that:
Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 18:49 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
Johannes has pointed out on IRC that E_NONE does already exist in some
projects, so that's an argument against it.
Yeah, I did a quick code search, which gave some results defining a
constant with that name. This
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 18:49 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
Johannes has pointed out on IRC that E_NONE does already exist in some
projects, so that's an argument against it.
Yeah, I did a quick code
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Adam Harvey wrote:
I'd be happy enough with E_DEVELOPMENT instead of E_EVERYTHING. The
point is that everything should be on — we should be encouraging
developers to fix up E_STRICT notices as well as the usual array of
things E_ALL shows.
Don't we already have this with
On 08/25/2010 03:07 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
Don't we already have this with the default two php.inis we have in some
form?
Yes, we do. And I, for one, also do not see the point for new E_*
constants.
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal Consultant
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Sebastian Bergmann sebast...@php.net wrote:
On 08/25/2010 03:07 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
Don't we already have this with the default two php.inis we have in some
form?
Yes, we do. And I, for one, also do not see the point for new E_*
constants.
Nobody
On 08/25/2010 03:38 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
Nobody uses the recommendation in the two php.inis.
So nobody will use E_DEVELOPMENT or E_NONE or whatever. We can only add
options to PHP that offer choices to developers. If they do not use
them ... what can we do?
--
Sebastian Bergmann
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Sebastian Bergmann sebast...@php.net wrote:
On 08/25/2010 03:38 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
Nobody uses the recommendation in the two php.inis.
So nobody will use E_DEVELOPMENT or E_NONE or whatever. We can only add
options to PHP that offer choices to
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
So nobody will use E_DEVELOPMENT or E_NONE or whatever. We can only add
options to PHP that offer choices to developers. If they do not use
them ... what can we do?
As a regular user of PHP, I like the idea of E_DEVELOPMENT and
E_PRODUCTION. They're clear and
On 25.08.2010, at 15:51, Tyler Lawson wrote:
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
So nobody will use E_DEVELOPMENT or E_NONE or whatever. We can only add
options to PHP that offer choices to developers. If they do not use
them ... what can we do?
As a regular user of PHP, I like the idea of
Hi
2010/8/24 Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net:
Kalle also suggested another constant within that request to provide a
symbolic version of error_reporting = -1, so there's a second patch in that
report to add an E_EVERYTHING constant which acts as E_ALL once did: it
turns on all error reporting.
David Zülke wrote:
That's because you're doing it wrong:
error_reporting(E_NONE | E_ERROR);
- David
You're correct that I did it wrong and I apologize. Your example is how
it would be properly written out and it would work the way the
programmer expects it.
My point was that
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Tyler Lawson ty...@n49.com wrote:
In short, I don't want to see error_reporting(E_NONE | E_ERROR); in
anybody's PHP code. Even if it is harmless.
What I don't want to see is E_NONE as a string [1].
Also people, why does every little detail like a goddamn
Stas,
Having E_FORTY_TWO would be super-useful ;-)
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
Rhetorical question: Why do we need constants when the values never
change? :)
You seriously don't know why one needs constants or don't see a difference
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky i...@prohost.org wrote:
Stas,
Having E_FORTY_TWO would be super-useful ;-)
FOURTY! Only to annoy all English teachers out there :)
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky i...@prohost.org wrote:
Stas,
Having E_FORTY_TWO would be super-useful ;-)
offtopic:
shouldn't be that E_ANSWER_TO_LIFE_UNIVERSE_AND_EVERYTHING?
maybe we should set E_ALL for 42 too. :)
-1 for E_DEVELOPMENT E_PRODUCTION E_EVERYTHING
+1 for
Folks,
http://bugs.php.net/52563 suggests adding an E_NONE constant (set to 0) to
go with the various other E_* constants we have. I've hacked up a quick
patch against trunk (attached to the report) that would add that, but don't
have Zend karma to add it, so I'll open it up to the floor: (a)
hi,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
http://bugs.php.net/52563 suggests adding an E_NONE constant (set to 0) to
go with the various other E_* constants we have. I've hacked up a quick
patch against trunk (attached to the report) that would add that, but
On 24 August 2010 21:46, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see it as an argument against as the fix is rather easy:
if (!defined('E_NONE')) {
...
But it should not be added in a minor release.
Agreed. To be clear: the patch is against trunk, and I wouldn't
suggest it even be
Hi!
http://bugs.php.net/52563 suggests adding an E_NONE constant (set to 0) to
go with the various other E_* constants we have. I've hacked up a quick
I'm kind of confused - why we need E_NONE? In case value of 0 should
ever change?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
http://bugs.php.net/52563 suggests adding an E_NONE constant (set to 0) to
go with the various other E_* constants we have. I've hacked up a quick
I'm kind of confused - why we need E_NONE? In case value of 0 should
Hi!
Rhetorical question: Why do we need constants when the values never change? :)
You seriously don't know why one needs constants or don't see a
difference between constant E_WARNING equal to 8 and constant E_NONE
meaning nothing and equal to 0? How about having constants ONE, TWO,
On 25 August 2010 01:47, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
You seriously don't know why one needs constants or don't see a difference
between constant E_WARNING equal to 8 and constant E_NONE meaning nothing
and equal to 0? How about having constants ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR? Just in
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
Rhetorical question: Why do we need constants when the values never
change? :)
You seriously don't know why one needs constants or don't see a difference
between constant E_WARNING equal to 8 and constant
Hi!
use an E_ constant with error_reporting and not have the current
situation where sometimes you use a constant (or constants) and
sometimes you use a bare number, depending on what you want to
achieve.
What's wrong with using 0? 0 means nothing, how hard is that? `
--
Stanislav
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
use an E_ constant with error_reporting and not have the current
situation where sometimes you use a constant (or constants) and
sometimes you use a bare number, depending on what you want to
achieve.
What's
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 18:49 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
Johannes has pointed out on IRC that E_NONE does already exist in some
projects, so that's an argument against it.
Yeah, I did a quick code search, which gave some results defining a
constant with that name. This means adding this in 5.3
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
use an E_ constant with error_reporting and not have the current
situation where sometimes you use a constant (or constants) and
sometimes you use a bare number, depending on what you want to
achieve.
What's
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 22:23 +0400, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
The only downside is, that programmer will need to know, that E_*
constants do mean numbers.
With adding E_NONE this knowledge would be unnecessary and people
would be able just to think in terms of abstract symbols
Users should be
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:14:05AM -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
use an E_ constant with error_reporting and not have the current
situation where sometimes you use a constant (or constants) and
sometimes you use a bare number, depending on what you want to
achieve.
What's wrong with
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Avoiding-Magic-Constants.aspx
I'm sorry, I could not resist.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Giovanni Giacobbi giova...@giacobbi.netwrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:14:05AM -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
use an E_ constant with error_reporting and not
33 matches
Mail list logo
