Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> But what problem are you trying to solve?
Me? None.
I just wanted to show a possible third way.
> There have been a lot of changes lately that adds more obstacles for
> the new user. Most of the books out there and all sorts of tutorials
> show short-tag examples.
But what problem are you trying to solve?
There have been a lot of changes lately that adds more obstacles for the
new user. Most of the books out there and all sorts of tutorials show
short-tag examples. People will try them and they won't work. Likewise,
with register_globals off now a bunch
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Please revert.
What about a compromise and enable it in php.ini-dist, and disable it
in php.ini-recommended?
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/
Did I help you? Consider a gift: http://wishlist.sebastia
I'm looking into these problems right now. Please be patient. A recent
slew of bug reports suggests that there might be some stuff that is
working for me here locally, but not for other setups..
As for getting a hold of a different version, the best I can suggest right
now is A) try a snapshot
I too (given a voice) would be against changing this default.
--
Dan Hardiker [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
ADAM Software & Systems Engineer
First Creative Ltd
>>
>>
>> Use of short tags is strongly discouraged. It is disabled by default
>> from PHP 4.3.0. Short tags are not only non-portable, but
>
> See details about this:
>
> http://bugs.php.net/?id=16495&edit=1
>
> This patch implements it..but should there be some
> parameter which triggers it?
>
Well, the problem with this is:
if (mysql_select_db("foo", $dbh)) {
print "BAH BAM BOOM";
}
will fail eithe
At 04:41 27/04/2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>
>
> Use of short tags is strongly discouraged. It is disabled by default
> from PHP 4.3.0. Short tags are not only non-portable, but also non-XML
> compliant.
>
>
I object. I don't see an overwhelming reason to disable short tags by
default,
>
>
> Use of short tags is strongly discouraged. It is disabled by default
> from PHP 4.3.0. Short tags are not only non-portable, but also non-XML
> compliant.
>
>
Disabling it by default has not been agreed upon.
I am against changing this default.
-Rasmus
--
PHP Development Ma
See details about this:
http://bugs.php.net/?id=16495&edit=1
This patch implements it..but should there be some
parameter which triggers it?
--Jani
--
Index: php_mysql.c
===
RCS file: /r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Addressed to: Yasuo Ohgaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ** Reply to note from Yasuo Ohgaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sat, 27 Apr 2002 07:47:08
>+0900
>
>>
>>I've changed basic-syntax.xml a little. The manual list short tag first,
>>even if it r
Yes, but I thought it was SGML compliant (as in, some sort of a subset of
SGML with lots of predefined rules, but still, falls into the SGML language
category).
But then, I could very well be wrong about this.
Zeev
At 05:37 27/04/2002, Andrew Lindeman wrote:
>I'm pretty sure XML is a scaled d
I'm pretty sure that XML is a scaled down and easier to learn/work with
version of SGML
Correct me if I'm wrong
--Andrew
On Friday 26 April 2002 07:30 pm, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 03:18 27/04/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> >It looks like we can. I was assuming the SGML characteristics for XML
At 03:18 27/04/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>It looks like we can. I was assuming the SGML characteristics for XML and
>it looks like I was wrong. A '>' is ok inside the tags.
Ok, so that's actually useful. But it sounds odd - XML is not SGML compliant?
Zeev
--
PHP Development Mailing List
Addressed to: Yasuo Ohgaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** Reply to note from Yasuo Ohgaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sat, 27 Apr 2002 07:47:08
+0900
>
> I've changed basic-syntax.xml a little. The manual list short tag first,
> even if it recommends
> Anyway, I would like
> >
> Erm, but that won't work :)
Obviously.
> >But sheez... That's just way too ugly, you can work around it and there
> >are other examples out there of people breaking this rule. Doing >a much more flagrant violation in my opinion.
>
> Look, I'm not trying to argue in favour of going bac
At 20:52 26/04/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > $bar)
> > ...
> > ?>
> >
> > Is this valid XML?
>
>No, this is technically invalid XML. You would have to write it as:
>
> But sheez... That's just way too ugly, you can work around it and there
>are other examples out there of people breaking thi
Hi,
this is getting off-topic for the bug system as it's 99% not
related to PHP.
Use your debian tools to verify if your binaries are right
(check md5sum or whatever) for a start. See also if you can
upgrade then. Whatever it is, it's most likely not related to
PHP (a
Threading on the level you are talking about is unlikely to happen (search
the archives!).
If what you are writing is criticial enough to need multi-threading over
multi-processing, you are probably using the wrong language :-)
BTW: Under linux, fork() is cheap and there is not much difference b
This is illogical.
It will break reams of code out there. People who have happily written
code without any intention of distributing it will now deploy new servers
and not have their code work. We will get slammed with questions.
Second, it is only a factor in very few cases. Very few people
While you're at it..add a note that the short tag
stuff is disabled by default in php.ini-* starting
from 4.3.0.
--Jani
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>I've changed basic-syntax.xml a little. The manual
>list short tag first, even if it recommends
>Anyway, I woul
Please qualify this correctly. There is nothing wrong with using
short-tags for code that is always going to live on servers you have full
control over. Simply explain the drawbacks instead of this scare tactic.
And no, it is not an obsolete feature that is going to go away.
-Rasmus
On Sat, 27
I've changed basic-syntax.xml a little. The manual
list short tag first, even if it recommends
Use of short tag is strongly discouraged. It not only
non-portable and non-XML compliant, but also a obsolete feature.
There are too many hosting services that enable short tag by
default.
Hi,
> From: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-pi
>
> [16] PI ::='' Char*)))? '?>'
> [17] PITarget ::=Name - (('X' | 'x') ('M' | 'm') ('L' | 'l'))
>
> [3] S::=(#x20 | #x9 | #xD | #xA)+
> [2] Char ::=#x9 | #xA | #xD | [#x20-#xD7FF] | [#xE000-#xFF
Just read that myself at w3c.org. I hate the format of their
recommendations, god. It takes forever for me to find anything specific in
their specs.
J
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-pi
>
> [16] PI ::='' Char*)))? '?>'
> [17] PITa
Ok, cool, so as long as we don't do something stupid like add "?> I suppose.
-Rasmus
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-pi
>
> [16] PI ::='' Char*)))? '?>'
> [17] PITarget ::=Name - (('X' | 'x') ('M' | 'm') ('L' |
From: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-pi
[16] PI ::='' Char*)))? '?>'
[17] PITarget ::=Name - (('X' | 'x') ('M' | 'm') ('L' | 'l'))
[3] S::=(#x20 | #x9 | #xD | #xA)+
[2] Char ::=#x9 | #xA | #xD | [#x20-#xD7FF] | [#xE000-#xFFFD] |
[#x1
I hear that. Not that reading specs and standards isn't fun...
J
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure it is. It parses fine according to Xerces, at any rate.
>> At first, I was thinking the greater than comparison would cause
>> problems, as elements like seeing the test written as "foo
Are you positive about that? I would have assumed so, too, but it passes
both the Sablotron and Xerces XML processors without so much as a warning.
J
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>> $bar)
>> ...
>> ?>
>>
>> Is this valid XML?
>
> No, this is technically invalid XML. You would have to write it as
This might not matter too much now, but conforming to XML standards might
matter eventually.
Let's say in a year or two, somebody decides to write a PHP module for an
XML/XSL processor. (Something like XSP using Apache's Cocoon.) Basically,
these processors take in some XML, look for processi
is this it then? How hard is it to get a hold of a version that is compiled the same
way as my version 4.1.1? I'd really like to upgrade. I do have the tools I need to
compile my own version but I'm not set up to do it and for the last 4 years of using
PHP I haven't had to since the distributio
> I'm pretty sure it is. It parses fine according to Xerces, at any rate. At
> first, I was thinking the greater than comparison would cause problems, as
> elements like seeing the test written as "foo > bar", but when
> you have the symbol inside of a processing instruction, it's fine.
Are you
I'm pretty sure it is. It parses fine according to Xerces, at any rate. At
first, I was thinking the greater than comparison would cause problems, as
elements like seeing the test written as "foo > bar", but when
you have the symbol inside of a processing instruction, it's fine.
J
Zeev S
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Gabriel Ricard wrote:
> Why are short tags ( and <% %>) such a bad thing?
They aren't really bad. It's just that they are optional and if you
distribute your code to run on someone else's PHP setup they may be turned
off. If you have full control over your PHP setup anywher
> $bar)
> ...
> ?>
>
> Is this valid XML?
No, this is technically invalid XML. You would have to write it as:
http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> Perhaps if it were a computer making these assumptions, yes. But anyone
> with half a brain can see that is much easer to
> understand for someone with no programming experience, than:
> .
Agreed, Sterling. I can't understand why this is so difficult to realize.
Theo, are you just trying to i
At 20:32 26/04/2002, Gabriel Ricard wrote:
>Why are short tags ( and <% %>) such a bad thing?
<% %> are bad because they're not supported on most setups.
are not good enough because they're not supported on all setups, even
though they're supported on most. As to why they're not supported on a
At 21:07 26/04/2002, Sterling Hughes wrote:
>The whole point of the XML documents. When short tags are disabled, commands such as <% echo
>'HELLO'; %> don't work. If you allow syntax, it is not valid
>XML, which negates the point of having $bar)
...
?>
Is this valid XML?
[I'm not taking sid
Why are short tags ( and <% %>) such a bad thing?
Why does the PHP formatting (tags) matter in terms of SGML & XML?
Not that it matters, but personally I prefer to use the short tags because it's less code for me to write, it fits nicely into my
HTML, and I find http://www.php.net/>
To unsubs
> Ok. #1 is the first logical, technical reason I've seen against the
> shorthand being fully implemented (though it begs the question why it was
> partially implemented in the first place).
>
> I'm not to knowledgeable about SGML specifics (and I can't afford to spend
> $200+ for a copy of the
I only dispute your contention so far as you imply that it is ALWAYS true.
I never had any problem understanding what '<%= ' meant when I learned ASP.
When I was first learning PHP (after learning ASP), I saw many examples
which used either short tag format with shortcut ('{opentag}= '), and never
Well some people find "=~" quite readable.
But this is all funky magic stuff that is simply not easy to read.
For the newbie '{opentag} echo ' is much more clear than '{opentag}= '.
Actually this syntax is simply more predicatable for anyone that does
not use {opentag}= ' all day. So not only newb
Comparing notice for undefined variables and short tags makes no sense in
my opinion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using short tags if you
have short tags turned on, and you're using for code that you don't intend
to be distributed for reuse. That is not the case with using undefined
As I said. The assumption that '' is more readable than
'' is not universally supported. I'm not alone in finding the
latter easier to read.
To answer your aside, I spend alot of time writing code followed by reading
and maintaining that code.
I prefer the 'mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Frid
There's only one thing it's missing -- the equivalent of
socket_get_status(), which is not part of the extension, despite the name.
If I set my socket to nonblocking, the only way to tell if it has died is
to try to write to it, which isn't always a desirable thing to do :)
Unless there's ano
> If, as you imply, ' very existance is proof that ' were they allowed in the first place? If they were implemented "due
to
> popular demand", why is popular demand not sufficient for ' -Original Message-
> From: Brinkman, Theodore
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002
Ok. #1 is the first logical, technical reason I've seen against the
shorthand being fully implemented (though it begs the question why it was
partially implemented in the first place).
I'm not to knowledgeable about SGML specifics (and I can't afford to spend
$200+ for a copy of the spec so I ca
I'm not sure who runs snaps.php.net, so I'm posting to the list:
. . .
Even though no sane person can dispute the fact that the frantic
pace of PHP3 development warrants fresh snapshot of the venerable
scripting environment every three hours, many people feel that
the development and especiall
Markus Fischer wrote:
> By all means, this is completely insane :-) Have you
> seriously thought about what this sentence means? This would
> break 99% of the scripts, but I bet you had that in mind ? :)
no, it isn't
if it is an E_NOTICE warning it would break exactly as many
script
The only feature which would be useful towards this module is threading. If
PHP were able to thread it could handle multiple incoming sockets and
neglegate the need for IPC between child processes (where PCNTL has been
used) as it could all be handled by a common parent with shared (not
copied) va
I've been using it since the first API revision and it's been working fine
for me. (Up to and including the latest API revision.) As far as I'm
concerned, it's getting pretty close to losing the experimental tag.
(Perhaps by PHP 4.3.x or so, barring any glarring problems that I've not
encount
Guys, this argument has been killed many times. Please stop. The reasons
it won't change:
1. so it
would have to be which is even uglier and would cause a
bit of trouble at the parser level.
2. The only reason for using is to save a few keystrokes.
We have short_tags and asp_tags f
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 03:10:08PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
> ID: 16838
> Updated by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reported By: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Status: Suspended
> Bug Type: Feature/Change Request
> Operating System: all
> PHP Version: 4.2
I wrote this extension a while back, but I never released it since
I didn't follow coding style and it was my first forage into extension
coding for PHP. It should be what your looking for though for the
most part... the function of usefulness is: get_function_call_stack()
which will return an ar
> -Original Message-
> From: Brinkman, Theodore
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 26 April 2002 14:55
> To: 'PHP Developers Mailing List'
> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV]
>
> Sure, and its only an extra 4 character, really. But that's
> not the issue
> at hand. The issue at hand is tha
Hello!
I've got a problem uploading files (PDF, TXT, others...).
I'm building an intranet for my compagny (I work on a local network). I've already
write some
upload functions in PHP for others sites with success, but this time I have a strange
thing :
I receive the file, I can c
Sure, and its only an extra 4 character, really. But that's not the issue
at hand. The issue at hand is that the inconsistency of supporting is hard to read at least one
other person says they find harder to read. I
personally find the first easier to read when it is embedded in the middle
of
> > can you explain me why this affects the url_scanner ?
>
> i'm a liar;-)
i know ;)
>
> no, if architected smart it would make no real difference.
> but - do we really want it? session-data belongs into the
> session. this new function just allows you to identify
> differ
At 10:37 26/04/2002 +0100, Dan Hardiker wrote:
>Could there not be a php.ini switch put in? - like there is for asp-style
>tags?
>
>This could even be defaulted to 0 so that people who write sloppy code
>(and/org might confuse
>After reading the thread it seems that this option would be a win / w
At 19:11 25/04/2002 -0400, Brinkman, Theodore wrote:
>Well, having read that thread (thank you), I tallied up the votes (where I
>could tell what the vote was) and it was 13 for, 3 against, 2
>undecided/don't care. Of the unsure, one person voted against, then
>undecided, then for, the other vote
> No problem.
> Are we going to decide before PHP5?
Which came first: the chicken, or the egg?
In otherwords, doubtful. Read the archives and see how often this
arguement comes up.
>---<
Dan Kalowsky"The record sho
Sorry; wrong list, I get boths lists in the same mailbox and I just replied
to a message already there.
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam Liddicott
> Sent: 26 April 2002 12:01
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: phpize writes config.m4
>
>
> I'm making some more changes to php-swig, wher
Could there not be a php.ini switch put in? - like there is for asp-style
tags?
This could even be defaulted to 0 so that people who write sloppy code
(and/org might confuse Well, having read that thread (thank you), I tallied up the votes
> (where I could tell what the vote was) and it was 13 f
Your work around is how Im doing things at the moment (very annoying
picking up and dropping sessions). PHP's limitation currently is that it
can only handle one session at a time, and as thus, only one set of session
variables.
What Im hoping for is (at some point) there to be a multiple session
On 26/04/02, "Jani Taskinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I'm blind. :)
> So you have recode 3.5...just update to 3.6 and it works.
> That configure error message just needs tuning.
Yeah, but it worked fine for me before you changed configure!
I don't want to update my recode instal
Some know I'm working to improve swig-php to make module generation easy and
satisfying.
The final hurdle remains in handling and generating callbacks from the
module to PHP. Or rather from the library the module wraps to PHP.
This requires some kind of callback wrapper that can convert from a
> -Original Message-
> From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 25 April 2002 23:14
> To: Sam Liddicott; Sam Liddicott; 'Rasmus Lerdorf'
> Cc: 'PHP Developers Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Persistent overloaded class
> registration problem,
>
>
> At 11:11 24/04/2
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 06:59:21PM +0200, Harald Radi wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 03:04:36PM +0200, Harald Radi wrote:
> > > sounds very useful, go ahead ;)
> > >
> > > would you mind extending it that
> > session_set_userdata(array("thies" =>
> > > "1", "harald" => "2", "knorp" => "100"
Hello,
since a recent cvs update apache stops compiling here:
===> src/modules/php4
gcc -c -I../../os/unix -I../../include -DLINUX=22 -I/usr/include/db1
-DNO_DL_NEEDED `../../apaci` -DLINUX=22 -I/usr/include/db1 -I
-I/dat/dev/php/php-4.3.0dev -I/dat/dev/php/php-4.3.0dev/sapi
-I/dat/dev/php
68 matches
Mail list logo
