Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114883 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 65503 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2021 10:32:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2021 10:32:10 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF491804C0 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 03:48:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT, FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-pg1-f173.google.com (mail-pg1-f173.google.com [209.85.215.173]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 03:48:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-f173.google.com with SMTP id q15so11071423pgg.12 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 03:48:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IFRjGjtGnnSOxfXD5AB29d6+T6C8Xx+anO1G+mVRXZg=; b=I4JoK8V+dDLyPGlKGYtrlq3C544qygZSYO6E35e5NoEsUbGIS3QX+ZPoMCZ7BONsRa UCGcGXIExrmzEJ8edbrGYFfCDmpwKG8FlqJwdHTB6nzL7SlT01Af8szKIspUCt0yPIuC Qx+sjb+vUgi5SK2oABbPY+EIXMeOO37TjqFqrbdfmqiIf4bNpUs4AMmqf3hFzScsuqns jkBLVghxg+PuoVFvYgmcgA/AKvo6bMUdxJoUxplJvN+onfBcyAWVh45pvVcet2z1FKsG +MZHh2CupKIGSxIoh5CwGguQvxkN49plGQWNq6rIhah2MSRQoC3278eu6oarQiGWEpX2 Q+3w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=IFRjGjtGnnSOxfXD5AB29d6+T6C8Xx+anO1G+mVRXZg=; b=Ppkfznrq/QMR2xXOborPpEIyw0eRmcqgDrDrX/NQ1TUXuiNWzpM0bV4na9E/REIx5w Utx20TxoqBzkbSXOMK1Zu1Gx6VOp+ytDy5teEPQGK4kOtkT1cH5ZzRZoh0vds2RLXJHE Y/VKq0JMJ+A3E2WvkedP83G8dHhCdyTlm0kWZvXpX+YotSWQqOLctXjMLHULx0hIEKpH B1881+7hT04D2xkiMNEKZJHD0Jyo0qVVCMwHyd0wNc4+YWkh1C3TakTkFCYKZWvxlM2D 4GOPJv3kz0ZGIUUMRZ7PIWtgsZpVn6xwDQkt74z0LTwH6Wy+GDL6iz25hOUtx2b2Nj0J eODg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532XfX0kvj3jNzyksRRHBSlyqBYLFsGLaon4TMFxOF4KShhCsZKA pvq++sZK2zOsVKXEoisXSe84vwMgj9Y+B8G9tPtyKpRSg4vqauUZ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy8lKnQWL/Wpbqhk45cfcrZGvu9rdfHCe9OIiT3/cVVxiJBWV5u2+LYX66P/gYL6Kc22JkJEUAA8i9xiM4ZyLU= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:96fc:0:b029:2e9:e827:928f with SMTP id i28-20020aa796fc0000b02902e9e827928fmr3715196pfq.49.1623754112360; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 03:48:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <28be190c-21ea-b796-cec7-b8db21d14eca@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:47:56 +0200 Message-ID: To: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000011e6d505c4cbb7c4" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecations for PHP 8.1 From: divinity76@gmail.com (Hans Henrik Bergan) --00000000000011e6d505c4cbb7c4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" i don't like this part of the RFC: > There's a number of bug reports related to this. From what I understand, the core problem here is not that the ISO8601 format is *wrong*, it's just one of multiple legal ISO-8601 formats. As DateTime formats always refer to a specific format, not a set of multiple possible ones, there doesn't seem to be anything actionable here. - this is wrong, DateTime::ISO8601 *is* illegal in ISO8601. quoting ISO8601:2004 section 4.3.3: > For reduced accuracy, decimal or expanded representations of date and time of day, any of the representations in 4.1.2 (calendar dates), 4.1.3 (ordinal dates) or 4.1.4 (week dates) followed immediately by the time designator [T] may be combined with any of the representations in 4.2.2.2 through 4.2.2.4 (local time), 4.2.4 (UTC of day) or 4.2.5.2 (local time and the difference from UTC) provided that (...skipped stuff...) d) the expression shall either be completely in basic format, in which case the minimum number of separators necessary for the required expression is used, or completely in extended format, in which case additional separators shall be used in accordance with 4.1 and 4.2. DateTime::ISO8601 does exactly what part "d" says isn't legal, 1970-01-01T01:00:00 is extended format, and +0100 is basic format, breaking the "the expression shall either be completely in basic format, in which case the minimum number of separators necessary for the required expression is used, or completely in extended format" -part. " 1970-01-01T01:00:00" is legal extended format but illegal basic format, and "+0100" is legal basic format but illegal extended format, and mixing the 2 isn't legal. On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 12:33, Christoph M. Becker wrote: > On 23.03.2021 at 06:04, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > > >> t fopen mode > > > > I'm afraid there's - despite the warning - a bunch of code for Windows > > that relies on "t" and I don't think we should be breaking it. Is there > > a good reason to drop this mode? > > I don't see much need for 't' mode nowadays. Even Notepad properly > handles LF fine for some years now. It's not really bad, if it can be > explicitely specified. However, deprecating 't' mode would pave the way > to sometime change shell_exec() to no longer use 't' mode, what is a > footgun when dealing with binary data. So when using the backtick > operator on Windows, you always need to keep that in mind. From my > experience, 't' mode causes more harm than good. > > And if there is really the need for LF conversion, that still can be > done with an explicit filter. > > -- > Christoph M. Becker > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php > > --00000000000011e6d505c4cbb7c4--