Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49372 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 93200 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2010 19:42:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Aug 2010 19:42:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 213.123.26.185 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 213.123.26.185 c2beaomr07.btconnect.com Received: from [213.123.26.185] ([213.123.26.185:13360] helo=c2beaomr07.btconnect.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 2D/D1-18548-60DF26C4 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:41:59 -0400 Received: from [10.0.0.4] (host81-138-11-136.in-addr.btopenworld.com [81.138.11.136]) by c2beaomr07.btconnect.com with ESMTP id FGZ46766; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:41:54 +0100 (BST) X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Neutral-1, source=Queried, refid=0001.0A0B0302.4C62FD02.005C, actions=tag Message-ID: <4C62FD01.7010306@lsces.co.uk> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:41:53 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100506 SUSE/2.0.5-1.2 SeaMonkey/2.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PHP internals References: <4C62EC4A.9020106@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr07.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020B.4C62FD03.02BC,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2009-07-20 21:54:04, dmn=5.7.1/2009-08-27, mode=single engine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] back to 5.4 alpha From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > +1, I think that's the most sensible solution for now that would allow > us to proceed with 5.4, something we all seem to be in agreement on. A slight aside here, as I have not be bothering about what HAS been implemented typing wise ... A large section of the code a work with passes a range of data to functions and classes. If the function gets an integer it looks up the record with that id, an array assumes the data is already loaded, and perhaps a string value defines that a new record of that name is to be created. So I don't want the parameters passed to be tied to a single type. Is THAT affected by any of the current typing actions? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php