!Heredoc must go!

[Michael]

I can call them what I want.

I'm just telling you that they're not specific to Linux and they were around long before Linux. You didn't seem to grasp that when you responded "I know what I'm talking about."

The darn thing is 20 megs, and with dialup and PPM, I'd rather just use the one I have on cd somewhere.

Heh, bummer. Where do you live? In the U.S. these days, you can get cable or DSL for around the price of dial-up, so you might consider going for that.

BTW, Scite's website is: http://scintilla.org/

Yea, I know, I just wanted to know if there was anything in it that you found particularly useful or neat.

[Shindou Hikaru]

Hmmz. I like to call them linux line feeds because they distunguish them from windows \r\n.

I live in Holland.

[Michael]

Hmmz. I like to call them linux line feeds because they distunguish them from windows \r\n.

Well, just call them line feeds and call the Windows usage by what it's normally called: CRLF.

I live in Holland.

Ach, bummer, Internet isn't cheap over in Europe, is it? Must be getting worse after KPNQwest?

[Shindou Hikaru]

Well, just call them line feeds and call the Windows usage by what it's normally called: CRLF.

Ahh man, why do you always try to beat me? I can call them what I want. Unix line feeds and windows line feeds, it's much easier than holding the shift key and typing CRLF. Look, I'm not stupid. I know a line feed is printed as such: \n and is named LF. a carriage return is printed as \r and named CR and a windows line feed (I don't think it has a name) is printed as \r\n and is called CRLF. Waahh, I get really tired hands from typing all these damn capitals.

[Michael]

Ahh man, why do you always try to beat me? I can call them what I want. Unix line feeds and windows line feeds, it's much easier than holding the shift key and typing CRLF.

Lol, I suppose you can type it lower case if you really want. Typing lf and crlf is easier than typing "linux line feeds" and "windows line feeds."

But as I said, it just didn't sound like you knew, so I just mentioned what they were; I'm sure you'd get the same flak (helpfulness!) from people in other communities as well. And stop defending your intelligence, I never called you stupid, heh.

Sooo anyways, how 'bout that there heredoc?

[Shindou Hikaru]

hmmz. typing words is easier than typing random letters. I can type words without looking at the keyboard, weird and unlogical combinations of letters that you can't pronounce, are much harder to type (in my opinion). Lower case lf and crlf doesn't make sense anyways.

But as I said, it just didn't sound like you knew, so I just mentioned what they were; I'm sure you'd get the same flak (helpfulness!) from people in other communities as well. And stop defending your intelligence, I never called you stupid, heh.

If I didn't know, I would have asked. Hmmz, no, most comunities are in between. I've always thought of this communit that it usually didn't give the help I wanted, now you're giving more help than I want  

[Michael]

If I didn't know, I would have asked.

How could you ask if you had no idea? i.e. If you'd never even heard of computers before, how would you know to ask about them?

Hmmz, no, most comunities are in between. I've always thought of this communit that it usually didn't give the help I wanted, now you're giving more help than I want  

Lol, sorry, I'll try and restrain myself.

[Shindou Hikaru]

I agree. THis is a pretty senseless argument...

[Michael]

I agree. THis is a pretty senseless argument...

Heh, sorry, I didn't see my part as arguing, just stating and clarifying the facts. But yea, we kind of wasted this topic...

[groundup]

anybody see any benchmarking for heredoc as oppossed to a regular print/echo statement??

[groundup]

I just did my own using browser based PHP.

I did the following 10k times and got the following results respectively (0.50209200382233 and 0.16777002811432 seconds):

Code Select Expand

echo <<<EOT

0000000000
EOT;

Code Select Expand

echo "
0000000000
";
Now I am going to try with print (0.47212898731232 and 0.18862092494965 seconds).  [edit] just did some averaging and it is between .34 and .45 usually.  Usually at about .43.  With the second one being between .11 and 1.8.  Usually it is about .15 [/edit]

I will do some averaging later to see if these change but there it is.  Heredoc sucks in speed  

Btw, if you want to know why I used doulbe quotes and not single is because since heredoc has to parse the string, my echo/print statement should do the same.

[Michele]

As the person writing the new templating system for v2 I can tell you a little about it:

* HTML will be in separate files
* Templating details will be kept in separate files (i.e. index, Message Index, Board Index) to avoid having to load masses of variables and to keep in modular.
* The rest...

Once I've debugged it should provide something simple and flexible that makes it easy to move buttons/bars/elements of the design around and edit them. Code identification should be easier for those looking to make alterations too

Greg, are you going to follow current CSS1 standards in YaBB SE2? I would love to see those font size=-1 go the way of the dinosaur... along with those mult-level nested tables!

Have fun, Mad Moya

[groundup]

mad moya, anywhere where I can view these standards?

[Gobalopper]

It isn't really CSS standards but HTML or XHTML standards. In HTML 4.01 the font tag is deprecated and instead you should be using CSS to layout the content. This is even more true with XHTML.
Right now YaBBSE is somewhere in between. It uses some CSS but there are also tags, like <font>, to keep browsers like Netscape 4 happy.
You can see details on various web standards at www.w3.org. CSS 3 looks promising as it allows the use of columns which hopefully means we can do away with tables. And I think XHTML 2.0 working drafts have also been posted but that is still going to be a while before its finished.

[groundup]

we all want to keep our usability even with the older browsers