Hugues Peccatte a écrit :
> 2014-09-23 20:04 GMT+02:00 Marc Delisle <marc@infomarc.info>:
>
>> Hugues Peccatte a écrit :
>>> 2014-09-23 16:23 GMT+02:00 Marc Delisle <marc@infomarc.info>:
>>>
>>> That's it. Instead of using $pmaString->strlen or strlen, we could
>> imagine
>>> to use pmaStrlen and this function would call strlen or mb_strlen if mb_*
>>> functions exist.
>>> Another way could be to overwrite strlen with mb_strlen, but we wouldn't
>> be
>>> able to use the original strlen if needed. So I think that we should
>> define
>>> new functions.
>> What I don't like is that we would have two different syntaxes to call
>> string functions. We would need comments in the calling code to explain
>> why we are using a way and not another way.
>>
>>> I'll try to do a mass replacement and check if the execution time is
>> better.
>>> Hugues.
>> --
>> Marc Delisle (phpMyAdmin)
>>
>
> If by "two ways", you think about PMA_String and pmaStr* functions, there
> should be a misunderstanding. I don't want to keep PMA_String (at least,
> not for string functions), I'd like to migrate it into functions. Here, I
> kept it not to break anything, just to check performance.
> If you think about pmaStr* functions and standard PHP functions, I don't
> think this is a real issue, because we use PMA string object almost
> everywhere today, so it would be replaced by function calls.
>
> Hugues.

I believe it's a good idea to use just functions, but other developers
might think otherwise.

--
Marc Delisle (phpMyAdmin)