Derek

Obviously modules are written in C (as PHP itself is written in C), but you can also use C++. You don't need anything "extra" to write modules, and don't even need CVS access if you want it to be released with core, as you can send in patches to the mailing lists for others to commit. You don't need any special software, other than a compiler (heh), and there isn't anything 'special' required besides the header files and libraries in the php core (unless you're wrapping other software, of course). Most of the times, if you write it for linux it will work in windows (if you're careful). Just try not to use libraries and such that aren't available in windows and vice versa.

absolutely none, as we have discussed it on the internals list, and it seems we can't agree on anything in particular. It seems this one will fall into the cracks.

If the zend_eval_string function (which you want to use, im assuming its what does the work in zend, but I havn\'t looked and am at school now and cannot) (and which im hoping isn\'t like using eval(), heh ) doesn\'t like opening and closing tags, then you have to remove them. Separate your blocks, strip the tags, then feed them to zend_eval_string separatly. I havn\'t really looked at zend much, but daeken has. I don\'t really get what you mean by \"parse and execute the PHP file contained in the string\", but I\'m assuming you just want your extension to open and parse PHP from files...in which case im wondering why you\'re making the extension at all...

no, that\'s pretty easy with a simple regex. But...I don\'t know what your extension is for, but if its just for you, a warning, don\'t use shorttags, script tags, or asp tags; most servers don\'t have them enabled. stick to <?php ?>.

er, I don\'t really understand what you\'re getting at. Be more concrete, I don\'t see a problem with removing <?PHP and ?> internally.

A new construct was suggested by one \'oododa\'; his brainchild of sorts, which I rather enjoyed and wish to impliment. Here is a description, shorthand. Usage: with( $obj ) { method(); method(); echo $object_property; } Description: The \'with\' construct will pull all methods and object properties of $obj into the scope in which \'with\' was used. Upon exit of \'with\', scope will be destroyed, and to use the methods or properties again (out of object scope), you will have to enter into another \'with\'. Eg: [php:1:a8f599f1ce]<?php $thing = &new Thing; with( $thing ) { doStuff(); // Thing::doStuff() echo $obj_property; doOtherstuff(); // Thing::doOtherStuff() } function Stuff( &$thing ) { with( $thing ) { echo $obj_property; doOtherStuff(); doStuff(); } return $obj_property; // Error, $obj_property is in object scope. // $thing->obj_property should be used. } ?>[/php:1:a8f599f1ce] If you would like to help out, leave a reply.

well then, therein lies your answer. Remove any <?PHP and ?> from input, then use the function.

I\'m guessing its safe to assume you tried it without the <?PHP ?> tags...?

I don\'t see this changing anything at all. Security is not in your function names. Access is handled with your grant tables, people don\'t just have access automatically, unless you allow it.

great

great! this will cut the time of developing extensions by 1/4, atleast idea: int foo(string $bar, int $bleh[, string my_optional_var]);

this is EXCELLENT! This\'ll save a lot of time while writing extensions

on windows you can more than likely look foreward to php_smartypp.dll.

Core Hacking tutorials are on the drawing board. I\'m currently writing two tutorials, but they should be done quite soon, then I can sit down and plan a core hacking tutorial. Daeken is planning on writing an introduction as well.

Reply from Derrick of the phpdoc-list: