I do not know if this post made it to the list a while ago. No one
answered and i see I used the wrong account to send it. Please forgive
me if this is a redundant re-post.
This is a suggestion I think would not be too hard to implement:
Skip libc for all random functions. As I see it there i
Do you have a patch?
On 18-Jul-07, at 2:20 PM, Keryx Web wrote:
I do not know if this post made it to the list a while ago. No one
answered and i see I used the wrong account to send it. Please
forgive me if this is a redundant re-post.
This is a suggestion I think would not be too hard
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Do you have a patch?
Also @Antony Dovgal in the "let blocks" thread
Short answer: No.
The reason I posted my suggestions on this list was that a while ago I
had a few ideas as to how PHP could be improved. A seasoned PHP
developer suggested that I'd take my suggestio
On 7/19/07, Keryx Web <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Do you have a patch?
Also @Antony Dovgal in the "let blocks" thread
Short answer: No.
The reason I posted my suggestions on this list was that a while ago I
had a few ideas as to how PHP could be improved. A seasoned PH
On 19.07.2007 17:41, Keryx Web wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Do you have a patch?
Also @Antony Dovgal in the "let blocks" thread
Short answer: No.
The reason I posted my suggestions on this list was that a while ago I
had a few ideas as to how PHP could be improved.
What I don't underst
On 7/19/07, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19.07.2007 17:41, Keryx Web wrote:
> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>> Do you have a patch?
>
> Also @Antony Dovgal in the "let blocks" thread
>
> Short answer: No.
>
> The reason I posted my suggestions on this list was that a while ago I
> had a
On 7/19/07, David Coallier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/19/07, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19.07.2007 17:41, Keryx Web wrote:
> > Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> >> Do you have a patch?
> >
> > Also @Antony Dovgal in the "let blocks" thread
> >
> > Short answer: No.
> >
> > The rea
Hi David,
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 13:09 -0400, David Coallier wrote:
> After a bit of discussion with Jani, I came to realize that keeping
> the wrapper macro for php_rand, php_srand is plain useless. Yes some
> pecl extensions do rely on them (and for those who do, I also provided
> a patch [3]). W
I totally agree. the only reasn for the 5-2 patch was for people to test
On 7/19/07, Johannes Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi David,
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 13:09 -0400, David Coallier wrote:
> After a bit of discussion with Jani, I came to realize that keeping
> the wrapper macro for php_
On 7/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I totally agree. the only reasn for the 5-2 patch was for people to test
You can simply keep the old functions for 5.2 and remove them in HEAD.
We can't remove an API (or change it) in a point release, it is a full
breakage (BC and binar
On 7/19/07, Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I totally agree. the only reasn for the 5-2 patch was for people to test
You can simply keep the old functions for 5.2 and remove them in HEAD.
We can't remove an API (or change it) in a poi
11 matches
Mail list logo
