Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:100090 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 88367 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2017 16:42:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jul 2017 16:42:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lists@rhsoft.net; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lists@rhsoft.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain rhsoft.net designates 91.118.73.15 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lists@rhsoft.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 91.118.73.15 mail.thelounge.net Received: from [91.118.73.15] ([91.118.73.15:26121] helo=mail.thelounge.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 49/F7-40376-B696B795 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:42:20 -0400 Received: from srv-rhsoft.rhsoft.net (Authenticated sender: h.reindl@thelounge.net) by mail.thelounge.net (THELOUNGE MTA) with ESMTPSA id 3xJvlD3ZPHzXMf for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 18:42:16 +0200 (CEST) To: internals@lists.php.net References: Message-ID: <3a040cfc-9c43-d189-3950-69c86b51c825@rhsoft.net> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 18:42:16 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: de-CH Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Changes to SuperGlobals for PHP 8 From: lists@rhsoft.net ("lists@rhsoft.net") Am 28.07.2017 um 18:21 schrieb Kalle Sommer Nielsen: > 2017-07-28 17:11 GMT+02:00 Sara Golemon : >> I'm sure there will be many strong opinions on this, but let's move >> this to a new thread. :D >> >> 1. This would be an 8.0 change as it does represent a significant BC change. >> 2. We can discuss the possibility of INI options or other mitigation >> strategies for misbehaving code bases (and they do exist). >> 3. I'm definitely not decided on what I'd like from default session >> behavior. An error isn't out of the question, for sure. > > I for one thing it makes a lot of sense to make superglobals > read-only, writing to them seems more like a hack anyway and should be > avoided wrong question! the right questions are * are you fored to do so * are you harmed by the possibility and only if you can answer both with "yes" it's worth to cosindr changes breaking a ton of perfect working code