Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:102575
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.193 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c_xCxxakMBpU45Xow1BkhS+O7ZxBENQMSEY+CrSa_C0YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <17c367f8-3aeb-277f-36c3-f019e6d0d27a@blueyonder.co.uk> <94ff9afc-b3b0-0ae2-55bd-ce6c3936967d@gmail.com>
 <d033bed0-49f3-ccd8-c284-7090a5fb22e0@blueyonder.co.uk> <CALKiJKpQBbPSOWexfE74+EFTaKSnqF2ZONb_J_T4eYKYfqsobw@mail.gmail.com>
 <d1f1f7fa-f69d-d95d-e095-ec6c1d8b40e1@gmail.com> <CAF+90c_FFjKUZZwJ8x-2O3D5NHJ45nJBPdWyiswaG6SOk1PfYw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c_FFjKUZZwJ8x-2O3D5NHJ45nJBPdWyiswaG6SOk1PfYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 17:51:30 +0300
Message-ID: <CAJHtznw-g2fw1GOi+fcR1omQ8z9n2vKhs9_+CDLBEC9oE1y2nQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, rowan.collins@gmail.com, 
	Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000091cbb905702d91c9"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecate and remove continue targeting switch
From: vsuraski@gmail.com (Zeev Suraski)

--00000000000091cbb905702d91c9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 5:15 PM Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:07 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > > In the proposal, the code is valid in all versions of PHP up to and
> > > including 7.3, *and represents the same algorithm in all versions*. The
> > > only difference would be the side-effect of issuing an additional
> > > deprecation notice; that's not "a different meaning". In PHP 8, under
> > > Nikita's proposal, the code would not be valid at all.
> >
> > I agree with PHP 7 part but not with PHP 8 part. I think we should just
> > leave the warning there.
> >
>
> I don't care particularly strongly about the actual removal, just having a
> warning would serve the purpose just as well for me.
>
> Should I just go ahead and implement the warning (with no intent of future
> removal), or do we want to still go through the RFC here?
>

I think a sensible warning is fine and doesn't really require an RFC...

Zeev

--00000000000091cbb905702d91c9--