At 03:29 PM 4/5/2003 +0200, Marcus Börger wrote:
At 14:52 05.04.2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 01:12 PM 4/5/2003 +0200, Marcus Börger wrote:
At 18:07 04.04.2003, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2003, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage.
>
At 14:52 05.04.2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 01:12 PM 4/5/2003 +0200, Marcus Börger wrote:
At 18:07 04.04.2003, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2003, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage.
>
> Agreed, breaking BC for this sounds like a bad
At 01:12 PM 4/5/2003 +0200, Marcus Börger wrote:
At 18:07 04.04.2003, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2003, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage.
>
> Agreed, breaking BC for this sounds like a bad idea to me.
sometimes I just hate BC..
At 18:07 04.04.2003, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2003, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage.
>
> Agreed, breaking BC for this sounds like a bad idea to me.
sometimes I just hate BC..
Sometimes as in this case BC means sticking to
Derick Rethans wrote:
> I'd go for a notice instead, just like the other things like using an
> uninitialized variable.
That's what I meant, of course.
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/
Did I help you? Consider a gift: http://w
On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > Along the same lines, why do you care if you can call a static method
> > in a class without declaring it static?
>
> A warning would be nice. After all declaring a static method
> explicitly static using the appropriat
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Along the same lines, why do you care if you can call a static method
> in a class without declaring it static?
A warning would be nice. After all declaring a static method
explicitly static using the appropriate keyword improves performance (a
bit) because $this does
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Per Lundberg wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 19:06, J Smith wrote:
> > It's been said before, but PHP isn't C++ or Java, so why would they have to
> > be compatible?
>
> Because it will make it easier for C++ or Java programmers to find PHP a
> pleasant experience.
Only the peo
Once you start down that route, where will it end? When PHP's object model
is 100% compatible with Java and C++ (which is obviously impossible given
the differences between the two)? Or perhaps it should be made compatible
with Ruby or SmallTalk, so experienced Ruby and SmallTalk programmers will
On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 19:06, J Smith wrote:
> It's been said before, but PHP isn't C++ or Java, so why would they have to
> be compatible?
Because it will make it easier for C++ or Java programmers to find PHP a
pleasant experience.
I think much of the discussion of where PHP should go is a bit
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Per Lundberg wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 18:07, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Apr 2003, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > > > Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage.
> > > Agreed, breaking BC for this sounds like a bad idea to me.
> > sometimes I
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2003, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > > Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage.
> >
> > Agreed, breaking BC for this sounds like a bad idea to me.
>
> sometimes I just hate BC..
heh, me too :)
Derick
--
It's been said before, but PHP isn't C++ or Java, so why would they have to
be compatible?
J
Per Lundberg wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 18:07, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2003, Derick Rethans wrote:
>> > > Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage.
>> > A
On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 18:07, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2003, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > > Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage.
> > Agreed, breaking BC for this sounds like a bad idea to me.
> sometimes I just hate BC..
Why only sometimes?
Besides, it i
On Fri, 04 Apr 2003, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage.
>
> Agreed, breaking BC for this sounds like a bad idea to me.
sometimes I just hate BC..
-Andrei http://www.gravitonic.com/
* Use the source,
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 09:52, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> > What does everyone think about disallowing non-instance calls to methods
> > which are not declared static? Currently, this works:
> >
> > class A {
> > function B() { return 1; }
> >
On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 09:52, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> What does everyone think about disallowing non-instance calls to methods
> which are not declared static? Currently, this works:
>
> class A {
> function B() { return 1; }
> }
>
> A::B();
>
> But really, if B was int
>What does everyone think about disallowing non-instance calls
>to methods which are not declared static? Currently, this works:
I like the idea, but wouldn't that cause some problems with BC?
-~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~-
John Coggeshall
john at cogges
18 matches
Mail list logo
