Hello Andi,
Saturday, August 20, 2005, 3:31:53 AM, you wrote:
> Dmitry commited the updated instanceof to HEAD. I suggest to merge it into
> PHP_5_1 as many want it and it's an extremely low risk patch.
> If people object, we can put it into 5.1.1.
> So you see, I am not as stubborn as some assu
Hello Derick,
Saturday, August 20, 2005, 10:54:38 AM, you wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>> Dmitry commited the updated instanceof to HEAD. I suggest to merge it into
>> PHP_5_1 as many want it and it's an extremely low risk patch.
>> If people object, we can put it into 5.1.1
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Dmitry commited the updated instanceof to HEAD. I suggest to merge it into
> PHP_5_1 as many want it and it's an extremely low risk patch.
> If people object, we can put it into 5.1.1.
I saw he made instanceof NOT use autoload anymore. I'm not sure if th
Dmitry commited the updated instanceof to HEAD. I suggest to merge it into
PHP_5_1 as many want it and it's an extremely low risk patch.
If people object, we can put it into 5.1.1.
So you see, I am not as stubborn as some assumed :)
Andi
At 06:13 PM 8/11/2005 +0200, Michael Wallner wrote:
Hi
Hi Andi Gutmans, you wrote:
> I think you missed the point. Not all places that use is_a() should need
> this functionality, and it's questionable if they do...
That's why I wrote:
"and we assume 10% to check for a non-existing
class, it'd bail out at about 70 instances"
Regards,
--
Michael - <
I think you missed the point. Not all places that use is_a() should need
this functionality, and it's questionable if they do...
At 06:01 PM 8/11/2005 +0200, Michael Wallner wrote:
Hi Andi Gutmans, you wrote:
> Nothing hidden. I just don't think it's broken. I don't think it'll be
> terrible t
Hi Andi Gutmans, you wrote:
> Nothing hidden. I just don't think it's broken. I don't think it'll be
> terrible to change and I will look into it (actually already have).
Good news!
> I do think that people here missed the point though. If your code really
> requires this functionality then I th
Hello,
Can we just "undeprecate" is_a and move on? I do not have zend
karma (hopefully ;), Andi, can you take care of that?
Besides real world usages, the main point is not going to be solved
that soon, both sides can live with an unpedantic is_a (and not
deprecated) and a pedantic instanceof.
R
At 10:49 AM 8/11/2005 +0200, Michael Wallner wrote:
Hi Andi Gutmans, you wrote:
> I don't mind undeprecating it while I continue to digest the whole
> instanceof thread and look at real-world examples...
After all I think there's more hidden behind than just
your argument about the generic way.
Hi Andi Gutmans, you wrote:
> I don't mind undeprecating it while I continue to digest the whole
> instanceof thread and look at real-world examples...
After all I think there's more hidden behind than just
your argument about the generic way...? Why are you
defending this broken bridge that har
I don't mind undeprecating it while I continue to digest the whole
instanceof thread and look at real-world examples...
At 09:46 AM 8/10/2005 +0200, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
Hello,
As there is no way to find a solution to the two different vision
(pedantic, non pedantic ;). I propose to do not
Hello,
As there is no way to find a solution to the two different vision
(pedantic, non pedantic ;). I propose to do not deprecate is_a.
It cannot hurt neither is_a (is_a uses instanceof too) or
instanceof. The only cons for is_a is a little slow down, which is
negligeable.
Any objection?
Regar
12 matches
Mail list logo
