Everything
php
Learn Community Releases The PHP Project
Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » SPL »

SPL

php.internals

Marcus Boerger

22 years ago
Hello internals, i would like to see ext/SPL from PECL as a default built-in PHP5 module. It is stable enough and for 5.0 i do not plan any more features. Since some earlier SimpleXML features are moved into SPL this makes even more sense. Any votes pro or against? Best regards, Marcus mailto:mail@marcus-boerger.de

Derick Rethans

22 years ago
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> i would like to see ext/SPL from PECL as a default built-in PHP5 module. > It is stable enough and for 5.0 i do not plan any more features. Since some > earlier SimpleXML features are moved into SPL this makes even more sense. > Any votes pro or against?
+1 Derick

Edin Kadribasic

22 years ago
On Sunday, Jan 18, 2004, at 23:22 Europe/Copenhagen, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello internals, > > i would like to see ext/SPL from PECL as a default built-in PHP5 > module. > It is stable enough and for 5.0 i do not plan any more features. Since > some > earlier SimpleXML features are moved into SPL this makes even more > sense. > Any votes pro or against?
+1 from here too since it allows extension authors to add advanced features. Edin

Jon Parise

22 years ago
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:22:35PM +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> i would like to see ext/SPL from PECL as a default built-in PHP5 module. > It is stable enough and for 5.0 i do not plan any more features. Since some > earlier SimpleXML features are moved into SPL this makes even more sense. > Any votes pro or against?
+1 I hope to use SPL some time soon in the context of my new PHP5-aware Python extension.
-- Jon Parise (jon@php.net) :: The PHP Project (http://www.php.net/)

George Schlossnagle

22 years ago
On Jan 18, 2004, at 5:57 PM, Jon Parise wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:22:35PM +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote: > >> i would like to see ext/SPL from PECL as a default built-in PHP5 >> module. >> It is stable enough and for 5.0 i do not plan any more features. >> Since some >> earlier SimpleXML features are moved into SPL this makes even more >> sense. >> Any votes pro or against? > > +1
+1, SPL is cool. George

Derek Ford

22 years ago
George Schlossnagle wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 2004, at 5:57 PM, Jon Parise wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:22:35PM +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote: >> >>> i would like to see ext/SPL from PECL as a default built-in PHP5 >>> module. >>> It is stable enough and for 5.0 i do not plan any more features. >>> Since some >>> earlier SimpleXML features are moved into SPL this makes even more >>> sense. >>> Any votes pro or against? >> >> >> +1 > > > +1, SPL is cool. > > George >
+1, SPL looks promising.

Andrei Zmievski

22 years ago
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Derek Ford wrote:
> >+1, SPL is cool. > > > >George > > > +1, SPL looks promising.
SPL, SPL. SPL? SPL! SPL, SPPPLLLL. Bonus points if you recognize the movie reference. -Andrei "Dealing with failure is easy: Work hard to improve. Success is also easy to handle: You've solved the wrong problem. Work hard to improve." - Alan Perlis

Christian Schneider

22 years ago
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> SPL, SPL. SPL? SPL! SPL, SPPPLLLL. > > Bonus points if you recognize the movie reference.
Being John Malkovich :-) - Chris

Andrei Zmievski

22 years ago
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Christian Schneider wrote:
> >Bonus points if you recognize the movie reference. > > Being John Malkovich :-)
That-a-boy. -Andrei * I don't have a solution but I admire the problem. *

Sebastian Bergmann

22 years ago
Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Any votes pro or against?
+1, although something's currently b0rked on Windows: simplexml.obj: error LNK2001: Unresolved external symbol: _zm_startup_spl_sxe
-- Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/ Das Buch zu PHP 5: http://professionelle-softwareentwicklung-mit-php5.de/

Andi Gutmans

22 years ago
Fine with me. At 11:22 PM 1/18/2004 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:

Derick Rethans

22 years ago
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Fine with me.
It is done then. Derick