Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #15259 > unrolled thread

Is there a better way?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php

Contents

  Is there a better way? Paul Knaggs <paul@tagmebands.co.uk> - 2015-04-13 19:47 -0700
    Re: Is there a better way? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-14 07:54 -0400
    Re: Is there a better way? Paul Knaggs <paul@tagmebands.co.uk> - 2015-04-15 04:40 -0700
      Re: Is there a better way? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-15 11:01 -0400
    Re: Is there a better way? richard <noreply@example.com> - 2015-04-15 15:04 -0400
      Re: Is there a better way? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-04-15 15:40 -0400
        Re: Is there a better way? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-04-15 17:14 -0400
        Re: Is there a better way? richard <noreply@example.com> - 2015-04-15 20:02 -0400
        Re: Is there a better way? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 15:18 +0000
        Re: Is there a better way? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-04-22 17:17 +0200
      Re: Is there a better way? "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2015-04-15 20:56 +0000
      Re: Is there a better way? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 01:25 +0000
      Re: Is there a better way? Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> - 2015-04-17 07:35 -0700
        Re: Is there a better way? richard <noreply@example.com> - 2015-04-17 11:52 -0400
          Re: Is there a better way? Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> - 2015-04-17 10:04 -0700
            Re: Is there a better way? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-17 13:22 -0400
              Re: Is there a better way? richard <noreply@example.com> - 2015-04-17 14:49 -0400
                Re: Is there a better way? Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> - 2015-04-17 12:20 -0700
                Re: Is there a better way? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-17 15:27 -0400
          Re: Is there a better way? Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> - 2015-04-17 10:30 -0700
            Re: Is there a better way? richard <noreply@example.com> - 2015-04-17 14:56 -0400
              Re: Is there a better way? Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com.invalid> - 2015-04-17 12:25 -0700
                Re: Is there a better way? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-04-17 15:29 -0400
                Re: Is there a better way? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-17 22:19 +0100
        Re: Is there a better way? Richard Yates <richard@yatesguitar.com> - 2015-05-24 15:22 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#15259 — Is there a better way?

I was looking at using Angular to try and do this but was told by a developer my code was not very good is there a better way? 

The code is an extract from function.php used in a dynamic page "request.php?=123"



case "foo":
    if($type == "foo"){
     $sql1 = $wpdb->get_results("SELECT * FROM  `him_form_fields` WHERE `form_id` = '$form_id' AND `inputtype` = '$type' ORDER BY `orderby` ASC ", ARRAY_A);
     foreach($sql1 as $row1) {
       $website=get_field_value($serialno,$form_id,$row1['systemname']);
       if(!empty($website)){
         echo '<div class="foo"><a href="'.$website.'" id="pearl_per_link_a" target="_blank"><span class="foo"></span></a><input type="hidden" name="foo[]" value="'.$website.'"></div>';
      }
     }
    }
   break;

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#15260

On 4/13/2015 10:47 PM, Paul Knaggs wrote:
> I was looking at using Angular to try and do this but was told by a developer my code was not very good is there a better way? 
> 

Did you ask the developer to elaborate on his statement?  If he/she
feels you can do better, he/she should be willing to tell why.

> The code is an extract from function.php used in a dynamic page "request.php?=123"
> 
> 
> 
> case "foo":
>     if($type == "foo"){
>      $sql1 = $wpdb->get_results("SELECT * FROM  `him_form_fields` WHERE `form_id` = '$form_id' AND `inputtype` = '$type' ORDER BY `orderby` ASC ", ARRAY_A);
>      foreach($sql1 as $row1) {
>        $website=get_field_value($serialno,$form_id,$row1['systemname']);
>        if(!empty($website)){
>          echo '<div class="foo"><a href="'.$website.'" id="pearl_per_link_a" target="_blank"><span class="foo"></span></a><input type="hidden" name="foo[]" value="'.$website.'"></div>';
>       }
>      }
>     }
>    break;
> 

I don't know angular (probably no one here does), but a couple of things.

First of all, you should always list the columns you are retrieving, not
just "Select *".  If there is a change in the database, you may end up
retrieving columns you don't want, or worse yet, one of the columns you
expect to be there no longer is.  Specifying the column names means you
will only retrieve those columns (and not something that was added), or
will give an error message on the statement if a column has been deleted.

Secondly, did you validate $form_id?  All input from the user needs to
be validated before being used.

Also, I don't know what $wdb->get_results() does, but all strings need
to be escaped before they are used in a SQL statement.

Other than that, I can't help because I don't know Angular.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15261

On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 03:47:47 UTC+1, Paul Knaggs  wrote:
> I was looking at using Angular to try and do this but was told by a developer my code was not very good is there a better way? 
> 
> The code is an extract from function.php used in a dynamic page "request.php?=123"
> 
> 
> 
> case "foo":
>     if($type == "foo"){
>      $sql1 = $wpdb->get_results("SELECT * FROM  `him_form_fields` WHERE `form_id` = '$form_id' AND `inputtype` = '$type' ORDER BY `orderby` ASC ", ARRAY_A);
>      foreach($sql1 as $row1) {
>        $website=get_field_value($serialno,$form_id,$row1['systemname']);
>        if(!empty($website)){
>          echo '<div class="foo"><a href="'.$website.'" id="pearl_per_link_a" target="_blank"><span class="foo"></span></a><input type="hidden" name="foo[]" value="'.$website.'"></div>';
>       }
>      }
>     }
>    break;

Thanks for taking the time to reply I was just looking at using Angular but it was not set in stone. But thanks very much for your comments they are what one would expect informative and productive to resolving any issues. Maybe I should have posted the entire page but thats a lot of code. The more you know you realise how little you know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15262

On 4/15/2015 7:40 AM, Paul Knaggs wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 03:47:47 UTC+1, Paul Knaggs  wrote:
>> I was looking at using Angular to try and do this but was told by a developer my code was not very good is there a better way? 
>>
>> The code is an extract from function.php used in a dynamic page "request.php?=123"
>>
>>
>>
>> case "foo":
>>     if($type == "foo"){
>>      $sql1 = $wpdb->get_results("SELECT * FROM  `him_form_fields` WHERE `form_id` = '$form_id' AND `inputtype` = '$type' ORDER BY `orderby` ASC ", ARRAY_A);
>>      foreach($sql1 as $row1) {
>>        $website=get_field_value($serialno,$form_id,$row1['systemname']);
>>        if(!empty($website)){
>>          echo '<div class="foo"><a href="'.$website.'" id="pearl_per_link_a" target="_blank"><span class="foo"></span></a><input type="hidden" name="foo[]" value="'.$website.'"></div>';
>>       }
>>      }
>>     }
>>    break;
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to reply I was just looking at using Angular but it was not set in stone. But thanks very much for your comments they are what one would expect informative and productive to resolving any issues. Maybe I should have posted the entire page but thats a lot of code. The more you know you realise how little you know.
> 

Paul,

I don't know anything about Angular, so I don't know if it's good or
bad, and make no recommendation either way.

The comments I gave you are just good practices which should be used
with any PHP code accessing a database.  And things like validating all
user input and escaping strings used in database requests are to help
prevent hacking.  You can never protect too much from hackers!

And good luck with your project.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15263

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:47:36 -0700 (PDT), Paul Knaggs wrote:

> I was looking at using Angular to try and do this but was told by a developer my code was not very good is there a better way? 
> 
> The code is an extract from function.php used in a dynamic page "request.php?=123"
> 


I just have to ask.
What exactly is =123?
the ? begins a variable list.
That is followed by a variable with an assigned value.
such as ?page=123

When I get told something like that, I usually respond with, "Ok so
enlighten me. Show me where my mistakes are. I'm willing to learn".
When they walk away with no response, then I know they really don't know
any better.

I once had a college professor say there was "God's way and his way".
"So WTF are you doing here then?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15264

On Wednesday April 15 2015 15:04, in comp.lang.php, "richard"
<noreply@example.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:47:36 -0700 (PDT), Paul Knaggs wrote:
> 
>> I was looking at using Angular to try and do this but was told by a
>> developer my code was not very good is there a better way?
>> 
>> The code is an extract from function.php used in a dynamic page
>> "request.php?=123"
>> 
> 
> 
> I just have to ask.
> What exactly is =123?
> the ? begins a variable list.

In PHP terms, yes.

As defined by the W3C, the '?' begins the "query" part of the URL. The IETF,
in RFC-1738, calls it the "searchpart".


> That is followed by a variable with an assigned value.
> such as ?page=123

Not quite.

The <variable list> consists of one or more variables. Each variable /may/
have an associated value, but it is not necessary.

Obviously, the code needs to have foreknowledge of the variable name.
However, it doesn't need to extract information from that variable; it's
presence or absence in the URL can be detected and used as information all
on it's own.

Consider
  if (exists($_GET('123'))
  {
    // We can do useful work, knowing that the query asked for 123

    echo "Found the variable"
    if (is_set($_GET('123'))
      echo "The variable is set to $_GET('123')"
    else
      echo "The variable is not set"
  }
  else echo "Did not find the variable"


Now, invoke the php page this code is in, with the following queries
  ?
  ?123
  ?123=456
  ?999

The first query ("?") should print out
  "Did not find the variable"

The second query ("?123") should print out
  "Found the variable"
and
  "The variable is not set"

The third query ("?123=456") should print out
  "Found the variable"
and
  "The variable is set to 456"

And, the fourth query ("?999") should print out
  "Did not find the variable"




-- 
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
PGP public key available upon request

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15266

On Wednesday April 15 2015 15:40, in comp.lang.php, "Lew Pitcher"
<lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:

> On Wednesday April 15 2015 15:04, in comp.lang.php, "richard"
> <noreply@example.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:47:36 -0700 (PDT), Paul Knaggs wrote:
>> 
>>> I was looking at using Angular to try and do this but was told by a
>>> developer my code was not very good is there a better way?
>>> 
>>> The code is an extract from function.php used in a dynamic page
>>> "request.php?=123"
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I just have to ask.
>> What exactly is =123?
>> the ? begins a variable list.
> 
> In PHP terms, yes.
> 
> As defined by the W3C, the '?' begins the "query" part of the URL. The
> IETF, in RFC-1738, calls it the "searchpart".
> 
> 
>> That is followed by a variable with an assigned value.
>> such as ?page=123
> 
> Not quite.
> 
> The <variable list> consists of one or more variables. Each variable /may/
> have an associated value, but it is not necessary.
> 
> Obviously, the code needs to have foreknowledge of the variable name.
> However, it doesn't need to extract information from that variable; it's
> presence or absence in the URL can be detected and used as information all
> on it's own.
> 
> Consider
>   if (exists($_GET('123'))
>   {
>     // We can do useful work, knowing that the query asked for 123
> 
>     echo "Found the variable"
>     if (is_set($_GET('123'))
>       echo "The variable is set to $_GET('123')"
>     else
>       echo "The variable is not set"
>   }
>   else echo "Did not find the variable"

Oops... that was sort of my pseudo-code

Here's the real deal

  if (isset($_GET['123']))
  {
    // We can do useful work, knowing that the query asked for 123

    printf("<p>Found the variable</p>");

    if (empty($_GET['123']))
      printf("<p>The variable is not set</p>");
    else
      printf("<p>The variable is set to %s</p>",$_GET['123']);
  }
  else printf("<p>Did not find the variable</p>)";


> Now, invoke the php page this code is in, with the following queries
>   ?
>   ?123
>   ?123=456
>   ?999
> 
> The first query ("?") should print out
>   "Did not find the variable"
> 
> The second query ("?123") should print out
>   "Found the variable"
> and
>   "The variable is not set"
> 
> The third query ("?123=456") should print out
>   "Found the variable"
> and
>   "The variable is set to 456"
> 
> And, the fourth query ("?999") should print out
>   "Did not find the variable"
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
PGP public key available upon request

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15267

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:40:11 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:

> On Wednesday April 15 2015 15:04, in comp.lang.php, "richard"
> <noreply@example.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:47:36 -0700 (PDT), Paul Knaggs wrote:
>> 
>>> I was looking at using Angular to try and do this but was told by a
>>> developer my code was not very good is there a better way?
>>> 
>>> The code is an extract from function.php used in a dynamic page
>>> "request.php?=123"
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I just have to ask.
>> What exactly is =123?
>> the ? begins a variable list.
> 
> In PHP terms, yes.
> 
> As defined by the W3C, the '?' begins the "query" part of the URL. The IETF,
> in RFC-1738, calls it the "searchpart".
> 
> 
>> That is followed by a variable with an assigned value.
>> such as ?page=123
> 
> Not quite.
> 
> The <variable list> consists of one or more variables. Each variable /may/
> have an associated value, but it is not necessary.
> 
> Obviously, the code needs to have foreknowledge of the variable name.
> However, it doesn't need to extract information from that variable; it's
> presence or absence in the URL can be detected and used as information all
> on it's own.
> 
> Consider
>   if (exists($_GET('123'))
>   {
>     // We can do useful work, knowing that the query asked for 123
> 
>     echo "Found the variable"
>     if (is_set($_GET('123'))
>       echo "The variable is set to $_GET('123')"
>     else
>       echo "The variable is not set"
>   }
>   else echo "Did not find the variable"
> 
> 
> Now, invoke the php page this code is in, with the following queries
>   ?
>   ?123
>   ?123=456
>   ?999
> 
> The first query ("?") should print out
>   "Did not find the variable"
> 
> The second query ("?123") should print out
>   "Found the variable"
> and
>   "The variable is not set"
> 
> The third query ("?123=456") should print out
>   "Found the variable"
> and
>   "The variable is set to 456"
> 
> And, the fourth query ("?999") should print out
>   "Did not find the variable"

thanks. was not aware of that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15269

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:40:11 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:

> Consider
>   if (exists($_GET('123'))
>   {
>     // We can do useful work, knowing that the query asked for 123
> 
>     echo "Found the variable"
>     if (is_set($_GET('123'))
>       echo "The variable is set to $_GET('123')"
>     else
>       echo "The variable is not set"
>   }
>   else echo "Did not find the variable"

Lew, you're missing the point. The url was "request.php?=123" which 
results in a query string of =123 which doesn't set $_GET['123'], because 
php is looking for key=value pairs, doesn't populate the $_GET array with 
values for which no key exists.

What it does do however (and in this case the only way to access the 
data) is set $_SERVER['QUERY_STRING'] to '=123'

As an example, using the query string '?=123&x=99&=176&d=&f=1' on the 
code I posted for richard's education results in the following outputs:

$_SERVER['QUERY_STRING']:

=123&x=99&=176&d=&f=1

$_GET[]:	

Array
(
    [x] => 99
    [d] => 
    [f] => 1
)

Of course you can parse the query string yourself, here's a very simple 
query string parser:

$data = array();
$bits = explode('&', $_SERVER['QUERY_STRING']);
foreach ($bits as $bit) {
    $kv = explode('=', $bit);
    if ($kv[0] == '')                // no key, assign next numeric key
        $data[] = $kv[1];
    else if (!isset($data[$kv[0]]))  // key and key not repeat, use key
        $data[$kv[0]] = $kv[1];
    else {                           // repeat key, get creative
        $i = 0;
        while (isset($data[$kv[0].'_'.$i]))
            $i ++;
        $data[$kv[0].'_'.$i] = $kv[1];
    }
}

When fed a query string such as:

$_SERVER['QUERY_STRING']:	=123&x=99&=176&d=&f=1&x=6&x=8

it responds:

$data[]:

Array
(
    [0] => 123
    [x] => 99
    [1] => 176
    [d] => 
    [f] => 1
    [x_0] => 6
    [x_1] => 8
)

compared to:

$_GET[]:	

Array
(
    [x] => 8
    [d] => 
    [f] => 1
)

However, consider the following very carefully before trying to write or 
use such a parser:

(1) Injection attacks - could you be missing something that happens in 
the parsing of $_SERVER['QUERY_STRING'] into the $_GET array that exposes 
an injection attack?

(2) Do you really need to handle duplicated or missing key names in the 
post query? Surely it's better to fix those in the requesting page / 
form / link, and assume that any extras that do happen are attempts at 
query manipulation and should be discarded.

In other words, the best use of this may be to detect discrepancies 
between $_GET and $mget and if there are such discrepancies, abandon 
processing and return an "anomolous input detected, please try again" 
page.

-- 
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15283

Lew Pitcher wrote:

> […] "richard" […] wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:47:36 -0700 (PDT), Paul Knaggs wrote:
>>> I was looking at using Angular to try and do this but was told by a
>>> developer my code was not very good is there a better way?
>>> 
>>> The code is an extract from function.php used in a dynamic page
>>> "request.php?=123"
>> I just have to ask.
>> What exactly is =123?
>> the ? begins a variable list.
> 
> In PHP terms, yes.

In PHP terms, _no_.  How did you get that idea?

> As defined by the W3C, the '?' begins the "query" part of the URL.

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) does _not_ define Internet standards 
such as URIs, and associated terminology; the Internet Engineering Task 
Force (IETF) and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) do.

The W3C defines *Web* standards by publishing specifications they eventually 
call Recommendations.  Web standards make use of Internet standards because 
the Web is an application of the Internet.  One of several.

> The IETF, in RFC-1738, calls it the "searchpart".

RFC 1738 (one does _not_ write a hyphen-minus there; either one writes a 
space between or omit the space), since it was published in 1994 (CE), has 
been updated by RFCs 1808, 2368, 2396, 3986, 6196, 6270, and obsoleted by 
RFCs 4248 and 4266.

<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986>

The current Internet standard on Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) in 
general is STD 66 (from RFC 3986) of 2005, which says:

,-<http://tools.ietf.org/html/std66#section-3.4>
| 
| The query component contains non-hierarchical data that, along with
| data in the path component (Section 3.3), serves to identify a
| resource within the scope of the URI's scheme and naming authority
| (if any).  The query component is indicated by the first question
| mark ("?") character and terminated by a number sign ("#") character
| or by the end of the URI.
| 
|   query       = *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
| 
| The characters slash ("/") and question mark ("?") may represent data
| within the query component.  Beware that some older, erroneous
| implementations may not handle such data correctly when it is used as
| the base URI for relative references (Section 5.1), apparently
| because they fail to distinguish query data from path data when
| looking for hierarchical separators.  However, as query components
| are often used to carry identifying information in the form of
| "key=value" pairs and one frequently used value is a reference to
| another URI, it is sometimes better for usability to avoid percent-
| encoding those characters.

>> That is followed by a variable with an assigned value.
>> such as ?page=123
> 
> Not quite.
> 
> The <variable list> consists of one or more variables. Each variable /may/
> have an associated value, but it is not necessary.

If there ever has been a “<variable list>” (the “register_globals” setting 
that is obsolete since PHP 5.3.0 and removed since PHP 5.4.0 would suggest 
that there has been: the names did create global variables if this setting 
was "on", with all side effects and security issues; however, even RFC 1738 
does _not_ contain that term), there is not one anymore.

As you can see above, the format of the query component of a URI is – 
intentionally, because of *general* applicability (hence URI and not just 
URL) – rather arbitary; however, the historical practice of having a name 
associated with a value, whereas those are delimited by “=”, and several 
name-values are delimited by “&”, persists.  Particularly with PHP where the 
names make up /keys/ of /elements/ (_not_ “variables”) of /superglobal/ 
/arrays/, and the values make up either the associated values, or, if the 
key ends with ”[]”, the values of the array that is the value associated 
with the name, with ”[]” stripped for the corresponding array key.

> Obviously, the code needs to have foreknowledge of the variable name.
> However, it doesn't need to extract information from that variable; it's
> presence or absence in the URL can be detected and used as information all
> on it's own.
> 
> Consider

Considered and rejected.

>   if (exists($_GET('123'))

There is no built-in exists() function, and there is no need for a misnamed 
user-defined one, because there are appropriate built-in functions.

PHP arrays are subscripted with rectangular brackets (“[…]”), not 
parentheses (“(…)”).

>   {
>     // We can do useful work, knowing that the query asked for 123
> 
>     echo "Found the variable"
>     if (is_set($_GET('123'))

isset(), not is_set().  As a rule of thumb, only identifiers of type-
detection functions start with “is_” in PHP – like is_null(), is_string(), 
and is_array().  Therefore, is_set() could be only a future function for 
determining if a value was of the “set” type.  As such, it should _not_ be 
used as the identifier for a user-defined function (at least not without 
function_exists() guard).

<http://php.net/manual/en/ref.var.php>
<http://php.net/function_exists>

However, isset() returns TRUE for references whose referred value is not 
NULL.  And a "variable" that is "not set" in a query component (i.e., the 
superglobal $_GET array’s element $_GET[$name], where $name equals the 
"variable" name) has the value "" of type string, not NULL of type NULL.  
(*All* values are string values there.)

>       echo "The variable is set to $_GET('123')"
>     else
>       echo "The variable is not set"
>   }
>   else echo "Did not find the variable"

That is not even syntactically valid PHP code, and there is no need to post 
pseudo-code here.  The actual (recommended) PHP syntax and approach for this 
example is straightforward (although the output still uses wrong 
terminology):

  if (array_key_exists('123', $_GET))
  {
    /* We can do useful work, knowing that the query asked for 123 */

    echo "Found the variable";
    if ($_GET['123'] !== '')
    {
      echo "The variable is set to {$_GET['123']}";
    }
    else
    {
      echo "The variable is not set";
    }
  }
  else
  {
    echo "Did not find the variable";
  }

<http://php.net/array_key_exists>

It should be noted that isset($a[$b]) never generates a warning if $a is not 
defined, while array_key_exists($b, $a) does.  But array_key_exists() is 
also more appropriate here because $_GET always exists, unless you set the 
“variables_order” setting differently (the default and recommended 
development and production values all include "G").

<http://php.net/manual/en/ini.core.php#ini.variables-order>

> The second query ("?123") should print out
>   "Found the variable"
> and
>   "The variable is not set"

It should be noted that, if your code would resemble PHP code, in the way I 
suggested above, it would print out “Found the variableThe variable is not 
set” because you forgot the trailing "\n" (or something to that effect) 
*again*.

I suggest you either refrain from posting or prepare your postings more 
carefully; in particular, if you post, *verify* the information and *test* 
the code before posting it.  When PHP newbies come here, and especially 
“richard”, they are confused already; there is no need to confuse them 
further, or confirm their misconceptions.

-- 
PointedEars
Zend Certified PHP Engineer
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15265

richard the sto0pid wrote:

> I once had a college professor

I don't believe that for an instant.

-- 
   -bts
   -This space for rent, but the price is high

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15268

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:04:52 -0400, richard wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:47:36 -0700 (PDT), Paul Knaggs wrote:

>> The code is an extract from function.php used in a dynamic page
>> "request.php?=123"

> I just have to ask.
> What exactly is =123?

I don't know, the url being shown is "request.php?=123" with the ? 
preceding the =123.

? starts the query string in a GET request which is usually one or more 
name=value pairs separated by ampersands, and which can be accessed with 
php using the $_GET[] array. Additionally the whole query string is 
accessible as $_SERVER['QUERY_STRING'], in which case php code can parse 
it as a string, rather than by using the $_GET[] array.

"request.php?=123" will generate an empty $_GET[] array, but will place 
the string "=123" in $_SERVER['QUERY_STRING'].

The following php can be used to demonstrate this (if it formats 
correctly, or maybe even if if it doesn't).

<?php

$get = print_r($_GET, true);

echo <<< EOT

<!doctype html>
<html lang="en">
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
    <title>"qs vs get"</title>
    <style type="text/css">
      body{margin: 1em 3em}
      table{border-collapse: collapse}
      td{border: thin solid black; padding:1em}
    </style>
  </head>
  <body>
    <table>
      <tr>
        <td>\$_SERVER['QUERY_STRING']:</td>
        <td>{$_SERVER['QUERY_STRING']}</td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td>\$_GET[]:</td>
        <td><pre>{$get}</pre></td>
      </tr>
    </table>
  </body>
</html>

EOT;


-- 
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15270

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:04:52 -0400, richard <noreply@example.com>
wrote:

>I once had a college professor 

You did not go to college.

>say there was "God's way and his way".

Who is "his" in this context?

If you went to college, you'd now what quotation marks mean. It means
the person said EXACTLY what was in the quotation marks.

Do you maybe mean the professor said "There's God's way and my way"?

If you don't understand the difference, which I doubt you do, there's
no way you went to college.

>"So WTF are you doing here then?"

What, were you mopping the floor of a college when a professor said
that to someone else?

If you DID go to college, you should have no problem showing an alumni
site with your name on it.
-- 
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15271

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:35:19 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:04:52 -0400, richard <noreply@example.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>I once had a college professor 
> 
> You did not go to college.
> 
>>say there was "God's way and his way".
> 
> Who is "his" in this context?
> 
> If you went to college, you'd now what quotation marks mean. It means
> the person said EXACTLY what was in the quotation marks.
> 
> Do you maybe mean the professor said "There's God's way and my way"?
> 
> If you don't understand the difference, which I doubt you do, there's
> no way you went to college.
> 
>>"So WTF are you doing here then?"
> 
> What, were you mopping the floor of a college when a professor said
> that to someone else?
> 
> If you DID go to college, you should have no problem showing an alumni
> site with your name on it.

Evan. I do not answer to you.
I do not have to explain to you every damn little thing I ever did.
You are an ignorant cuss who has nothing better to do than go online and
harass people just because that is your nature.
At your former employer, you spent better than half the time online instead
of doing your job.
And you claim to be so damned smart.
Then why are you working in IT?
You're so smart, start your own damn business.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15272

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:52:37 -0400, richard <noreply@example.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:35:19 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
>Evan. I do not answer to you.
>I do not have to explain to you every damn little thing I ever did.
>You are an ignorant cuss who has nothing better to do than go online and
>harass people just because that is your nature.

So you didn't graduate from college. Gotcha.

>At your former employer, you spent better than half the time online instead
>of doing your job.
>And you claim to be so damned smart.
>Then why are you working in IT?

Lots of smart people work in IT.

>You're so smart, start your own damn business.

Let's see. I can make good money, working 40 hours a week, or I can
start my own business, work 70-80 hours a week, and maybe make a tiny
bit more money? No thanks.
-- 
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15273

On 4/17/2015 1:04 PM, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:52:37 -0400, richard <noreply@example.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:35:19 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
>> Evan. I do not answer to you.
>> I do not have to explain to you every damn little thing I ever did.
>> You are an ignorant cuss who has nothing better to do than go online and
>> harass people just because that is your nature.
> 
> So you didn't graduate from college. Gotcha.
>

Neither did Bill Gates.  So what?

>> At your former employer, you spent better than half the time online instead
>> of doing your job.
>> And you claim to be so damned smart.
>> Then why are you working in IT?
> 
> Lots of smart people work in IT.
> 

So do lots of dumb people.

>> You're so smart, start your own damn business.
> 
> Let's see. I can make good money, working 40 hours a week, or I can
> start my own business, work 70-80 hours a week, and maybe make a tiny
> bit more money? No thanks.
> 

Smart people can start a company and make a lot more than they do as an
employee.  Do you think Bill Gates would have made as much money as an
employee?  How about Michael Dell?  Or Ray Kroc?

Dumb people and lazy people are satisfied just doing a mediocre job for
someone else.  Which are you?

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15275

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:22:15 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> On 4/17/2015 1:04 PM, Evan Platt wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:52:37 -0400, richard <noreply@example.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:35:19 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
>>> Evan. I do not answer to you.
>>> I do not have to explain to you every damn little thing I ever did.
>>> You are an ignorant cuss who has nothing better to do than go online and
>>> harass people just because that is your nature.
>> 
>> So you didn't graduate from college. Gotcha.
>>
> 
> Neither did Bill Gates.  So what?
> 
>>> At your former employer, you spent better than half the time online instead
>>> of doing your job.
>>> And you claim to be so damned smart.
>>> Then why are you working in IT?
>> 
>> Lots of smart people work in IT.
>> 
> 
> So do lots of dumb people.
> 
>>> You're so smart, start your own damn business.
>> 
>> Let's see. I can make good money, working 40 hours a week, or I can
>> start my own business, work 70-80 hours a week, and maybe make a tiny
>> bit more money? No thanks.
>> 
> 
> Smart people can start a company and make a lot more than they do as an
> employee.  Do you think Bill Gates would have made as much money as an
> employee?  How about Michael Dell?  Or Ray Kroc?
> 
> Dumb people and lazy people are satisfied just doing a mediocre job for
> someone else.  Which are you?


evan is the believer that those who make themselves filthy rich must be
highly educated.
Dave Thomas of the Wnedhy's burger chain didn't even finish high school.
And there are many more millionaires who never finished high school or even
attended one day of college.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15277

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:49:49 -0400, richard <noreply@example.com>
wrote:

>evan is the believer that those who make themselves filthy rich must be
>highly educated.

bullis, you need to stop putting words into my mouth. Where have I
said that?

>Dave Thomas of the Wnedhy's burger chain didn't even finish high school.
>And there are many more millionaires who never finished high school or even
>attended one day of college.

You need to make up your mind. You've backpedalled on that statement a
few times now.
-- 
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15279

On 4/17/2015 2:49 PM, richard wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:22:15 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> 
>> On 4/17/2015 1:04 PM, Evan Platt wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:52:37 -0400, richard <noreply@example.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:35:19 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
>>>> Evan. I do not answer to you.
>>>> I do not have to explain to you every damn little thing I ever did.
>>>> You are an ignorant cuss who has nothing better to do than go online and
>>>> harass people just because that is your nature.
>>>
>>> So you didn't graduate from college. Gotcha.
>>>
>>
>> Neither did Bill Gates.  So what?
>>
>>>> At your former employer, you spent better than half the time online instead
>>>> of doing your job.
>>>> And you claim to be so damned smart.
>>>> Then why are you working in IT?
>>>
>>> Lots of smart people work in IT.
>>>
>>
>> So do lots of dumb people.
>>
>>>> You're so smart, start your own damn business.
>>>
>>> Let's see. I can make good money, working 40 hours a week, or I can
>>> start my own business, work 70-80 hours a week, and maybe make a tiny
>>> bit more money? No thanks.
>>>
>>
>> Smart people can start a company and make a lot more than they do as an
>> employee.  Do you think Bill Gates would have made as much money as an
>> employee?  How about Michael Dell?  Or Ray Kroc?
>>
>> Dumb people and lazy people are satisfied just doing a mediocre job for
>> someone else.  Which are you?
> 
> 
> evan is the believer that those who make themselves filthy rich must be
> highly educated.
> Dave Thomas of the Wnedhy's burger chain didn't even finish high school.
> And there are many more millionaires who never finished high school or even
> attended one day of college.
> 

Yup, he's nut trolling - he has nothing worth saying, but needs to say
it anyway.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15274

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:52:37 -0400, richard <noreply@example.com>
wrote:

>And you claim to be so damned smart.
>Then why are you working in IT?
>You're so smart, start your own damn business.

Wait - you're the one who claims to have a 160 IQ.

So if you're so damn smart, then how come all of your jobs you've ever
had were menial jobs? Gas station attendant. Taxi driver. Truck
driver. Convenience store clerk. Security guard.

What business did YOU run on your own?

<Crickets>
-- 
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php

csiph-web