Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115294 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 45467 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2021 10:52:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 5 Jul 2021 10:52:54 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF4C1804B0 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 04:14:23 -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=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-wr1-f54.google.com (mail-wr1-f54.google.com [209.85.221.54]) (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 ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 04:14:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-f54.google.com with SMTP id a13so21590136wrf.10 for ; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 04:14:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=ir34dSNCjpG6cjRitLhRvrZKMRxxQA2HhX79RZ0Dilc=; b=S+aB8AfdwTov/0Hj3jCn+O1rxuWRCeKrC/GILX1GSSbIMKTqFwb8BvA3Qdc4xu91Nl inN9Cyjy4aBuxhw+OFf8Dnb4b8hQvtYa7lTIJwYT6CCnA6gGjxYzqa7ZHRQquymfF2nJ OVE1QlP5SeliZFWMQAUpsREQ+zGq/i6h6vFIfnLszSwBb/AqkR6P2XdyKLqDFV5gLnhd iGAiogCwzuGXldyhRGjr5uSPy/dUGw/0xYTDNo9904kPOZQ8LzT9dLLAQ2XBQrbAF9HN PYs+F7yx6p6mn7t8x6fG9s3BaHw2shNDhLsVA1Ww46Fs9XHNVQ2T+aDHVfUZrrmVFSyH /Ntg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=ir34dSNCjpG6cjRitLhRvrZKMRxxQA2HhX79RZ0Dilc=; b=AXd+U2KybqxdPRo7PP7Z2gNqLj7kxIKqz8ko0RSfQrBusQFkg0tzZOHUSdz/DZg6Ax SQOJOBl/d/dBgudIpeyVEywhVfJYk/HvtNmtPt2SCxPDS0fA5/ZCW+JKmccZX+LFMbdc PFz5MMv6Oyw4UBIoq+S4ZEuNoOt3OWapkWdcdi2jBdIzUuxU6YjMQ3n6MREmTuJpgaah 93SQEovCjpo9UFFiWh8z4kNBO/K5mJBN9fikO9NlmF6Nfdr0vesH+MO+hcXztvEATVIF UcHhWSzZyJ6AQTQ5JPWt6ywQ5TOuJ170Xkz6gmsUJAtfFC69s6NA0KqxmQOUQO8sWLrS KKgw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532xu8nJap4u1NJjM0ub8vv7SaCXkkw9cn3LL9OT/Do2WlGAjQMb vATl8mK92Ko1d3ixn4qsv+I2ihi9Cy4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJykbcZn7S/y8pXH0CbcrT6bv/q/tKeuNGB7edcqYb4TeJLZQJ/Cpz1Adrw4tiI/fZdE8to2Hw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:186:: with SMTP id p6mr15241663wrx.360.1625483658814; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 04:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (cpc104104-brig22-2-0-cust548.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [82.10.58.37]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id f9sm13118597wrm.48.2021.07.05.04.14.17 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Jul 2021 04:14:17 -0700 (PDT) To: internals@lists.php.net References: Message-ID: <1dcefcec-a3e4-e773-4950-b11d377ecc7f@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 12:14:16 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Deprecations for PHP 8.1 From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins) On 05/07/2021 11:46, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: > Did we ever deprecated something without the immediate intention of > removing it? What would that even mean? Surely a deprecation, by definition, is a notice that something is going to be removed. There used to be an E_STRICT category, which expressed a rather vague "you probably shouldn't do this", but I'm not sure who it really helped. If you want to encourage people to use alternatives to strftime() but not remove it, here are some more productive steps: * Improve the strftime() documentation to point out what those alternatives are, and why they're better * Improve the documentation of those alternatives with examples of the things that strftime() is commonly used for * Improve those alternatives themselves so that they're as easy to use as strftime() Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]