Folks:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:10:28PM -0400, Daniel Convissor wrote:
> STATIC
> --
> DocBook:
>
>foo
>
> public
> static
> int
> bar
>
>
... snip ...
> OBJECT
> --
> DocBook:
>
>foo
>
> public
> int
> bar
>
>
I've just
Hi Hannes:
> Bug report it, I'll see if I can change it this weekend.
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=51667
Thanks so much,
--Dan
--
T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y
data intensive web and database programming
http://www.AnalysisA
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 15:12, Daniel Convissor
wrote:
> Hi Hannes:
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:08:44AM +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>>
>> I think a new entity saying "Both examples above will output" is needed..
>> Looks great though.
>
> It already exists and is what I used in that example.
Hi Hannes:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:08:44AM +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>
> I think a new entity saying "Both examples above will output" is needed..
> Looks great though.
It already exists and is what I used in that example.
> Is the html already generated by PhD like this?
No.
> And
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:10, Daniel Convissor
wrote:
> Hi Hannes:
>
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 03:44:32PM +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 15:39, Daniel Convissor
>> wrote:
>>
>> > What seems clearest to me is to have Example #1 be drop dead simple use
>> > case and be c
Hi Hannes:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 03:44:32PM +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 15:39, Daniel Convissor
> wrote:
>
> > What seems clearest to me is to have Example #1 be drop dead simple use
> > case and be composed of an OOP programlisting, a procedural
> > programlisting
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 15:39, Daniel Convissor
wrote:
> Hi Hannes:
>
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:46:47AM +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 21:17, Daniel Convissor
>> wrote:
>
>> > If you're talking about the same , I agree. ?If you are talking
>> > about the same , I dis
Hi Hannes:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:46:47AM +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 21:17, Daniel Convissor
> wrote:
> > If you're talking about the same , I agree. ?If you are talking
> > about the same , I disagree because it will lengthen and
> > clutter the example.
>
> T
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 21:17, Daniel Convissor
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:42:14PM +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>>
>> > I suggest we go with &style.oop; (mapping to "Object oriented style") for
>> > everything. ?The parenthetical method/constructor/property are
>> > supurfluous beca
Hi Hannes:
Thanks for your thorough consideration. Here are some more thoughts...
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:42:14PM +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>
> Wouldn't &style.oop.[[static.]method|ctor|dtor|property]; make more
> sense? Just to make it really clear what it is.
If there were cases whe
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 04:28, Daniel Convissor
wrote:
> Hi Folks:
>
> In trying to add the procedural style interface to the DateTime docs I
> went searching for how we currently present stuff that has both object
> oriented and procedural interfaces. It turns out there is no consistent
> way of
Hi Peter:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 09:00:50AM +0100, Peter Cowburn wrote:
>
> I don't think having a new example block just for output makes much
> semantic sense. How about having multiple elements
> (one per paradigm) and one with the &examples.outputs*
> entities?
I just tested it and it wor
On 22 April 2010 03:28, Daniel Convissor
wrote:
> Hi Folks:
>
> In trying to add the procedural style interface to the DateTime docs I
> went searching for how we currently present stuff that has both object
> oriented and procedural interfaces. It turns out there is no consistent
> way of going
Hi Folks:
In trying to add the procedural style interface to the DateTime docs I
went searching for how we currently present stuff that has both object
oriented and procedural interfaces. It turns out there is no consistent
way of going about it, plus there are some other oddities that would b
14 matches
Mail list logo
