.php5 versus .php

[Rik]

Re: .php5 versus .php

Hmmmz, anyone else getting this twice? Seeems to be a trouble with Opera
newsgrouphandli ng, but I'm not sure.....

--
Rik Wasmus

Thinking that after a long satisfying trial of Opera it may very well be
it's got some irreconcilable flaw

[Curtis]

Re: .php5 versus .php

Rik wrote:

Hmmmz, anyone else getting this twice? Seeems to be a trouble with Opera
newsgrouphandli ng, but I'm not sure.....
>
--Rik Wasmus
>
Thinking that after a long satisfying trial of Opera it may very well be
it's got some irreconcilable flaw

I don't recall any problems like that while using Opera. However, I've
been sticking with Thunderbird, lately.

--
Curtis

[Curtis]

Re: .php5 versus .php

McKirahan wrote:

I am working in two environments neither configuration of
which I can change; one's my Web host the other a client.
>
My Web host requires the use of the ".php5" extension
to use PHP v5.1.4; where ".php" is used for PHP v4.3.11.
My client supports PHP v5.2.0 with the ".php" extension.
>
Is there a way to reliably determine if the ".php5" extension
must be used on a server? Perhaps via a "phpinfo()" value?
>
I have a page that uses the v5 function "file_put_conte nts()".
(I like it's LOCK_EX feature.)
>
Thanks in advance.
>
>

What's wrong with coding your own version of file_put_conten ts? The
cool thing about the user notes on php.net's docs, is that if there
are any backward compatibility issues, users will usually post
workaround functions. Over time, they generally get more efficient, as
one person tries to do the same thing more efficiently than the last.
The user notes aren't validated though, so you need to have your wits
about you when it comes to making sure code won't become a security risk.

--
Curtis

[Kimmo Laine]

Re: .php5 versus .php

Rik kirjoitti:

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:54:36 +0100, shimmyshack <matt.farey@gma il.com>
wrote:

>yeah, do you know in years of php programming I've only ever
>concatenated strings when using echo - my bad - although I always use
>' instead of " so brownie points there huh! perhaps its time to go
>read up on some other functions too! sorry for any confusion, I don't
>think ill be notifying the php doc group!

>
echo is not a function, it's a construct :P
Hence the unexpecyed behaviour.
--Rik Wasmus

Normal functions are also capable of recieveing an arbitrary number of
parameters. Print just isn't programmed to handle them. It's true that
echo is a language construct, but that doesn't make it magical.

Something like this should work: (didn't test thou)

function print_multiple( ){
foreach(func_ge t_args() as $arg)
print($arg);
}

print_multiple( 'Hello', ' ', 'world!'); // Using commas instead of dots.

--
"En ole paha ihminen, mutta omenat ovat elinkeinoni." -Perttu Sirviö
spam@outolempi. net | Gedoon-S @ IRCnet | rot13(xvzzb@bhg byrzcv.arg)

[Rik]

Re: .php5 versus .php

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:41:08 +0100, Kimmo Laine <spam@outolempi .netwrote:

Rik kirjoitti:

>On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:54:36 +0100, shimmyshack <matt.farey@gma il.com>
>wrote:

>>yeah, do you know in years of php programming I've only ever
>>concatenate d strings when using echo - my bad - although I always use
>>' instead of " so brownie points there huh! perhaps its time to go
>>read up on some other functions too! sorry for any confusion, I don't
>>think ill be notifying the php doc group!

> echo is not a function, it's a construct :P
>Hence the unexpecyed behaviour.
>--Rik Wasmus

>
Normal functions are also capable of recieveing an arbitrary number of
parameters. Print just isn't programmed to handle them. It's true that
echo is a language construct, but that doesn't make it magical.

Indeed you are right, I was talking out of my ass. Being a construct has
nothing to do with it (other then you don't need brackets). Why the hell
do I feel the need to post at 5 o'clock at night after a party?
--
Rik Wasmus