Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115955 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 77238 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2021 05:25:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 5 Sep 2021 05:25:03 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2A41804C8 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 23:01:57 -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=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS714 17.58.0.0/20 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from pv50p00im-zteg10011501.me.com (pv50p00im-zteg10011501.me.com [17.58.6.42]) (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 ; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 23:01:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=icloud.com; s=1a1hai; t=1630821716; bh=Ggm5wHYgvCg4wlkmPHrdU5w+/nvofvLV4e4TA9h474U=; h=From:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Message-Id:Date:To; b=drRvOLUAeMqjSTAFcg/71eYvXt2JO799YG43GHUhG8PuphfLrlzKB2qnHu2yCO8D9 fJJIGQturCBSC8/prRkXVIqqdTn9YO1u/dVFuJIqtxA8CTy8Qkpz8UhycMMQ+rNdP9 FRDQWgR7vfdq/ZYT/i7dpONjsSXvoblYpEbHzYQ2dtvjzstDFfd97yawuihm6WK0hu 4ZvxpwlsxnHD2kdnW1gTSdQk9SMmm0/mt2N9f/T7A+fAuR3diRUNWCMy8gJRj2wh6P Vl0XQP2D+20NPGbtLdQOOvm90TPJSO8lgMT//cyWZZU87w1+nndNFUD/rTCmLcX9SJ xk+KZKYbL8RYg== Received: from [192.168.0.17] (095160073054.gdansk.vectranet.pl [95.160.73.54]) by pv50p00im-zteg10011501.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5ABEEB00160 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 06:01:55 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\)) Message-ID: <03FA66B8-D164-496C-93D4-B70B9874BB6B@icloud.com> Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2021 08:01:52 +0200 To: internals@lists.php.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.790 definitions=2021-09-04_09:2021-09-03,2021-09-04 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=941 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-2009150000 definitions=main-2109050040 Subject: Deprecation of ext/date ISO8061 constants From: ddziaduch@icloud.com (Damian Dziaduch) Hello internals! This is my first time writing here :) The deprecation was originally added in RFC Deprecations for PHP 8.1, = but in a later stage dropped entirely: = https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecations_php_8_1?do=3Ddiff&rev2%5B0%5D=3D1623= 754059&rev2%5B1%5D=3D1623759320&difftype=3Dsidebyside It was already discussed on this mailing list: > List: php-internals > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecations for PHP 8.1 > From: Nikita Popov > Date: 2021-06-15 12:23:50 > Message-ID: CAF+90c8wht+LpERZxj-XuY4sAYek8fH9hH_fc+JVZYg_yiAMpw () = mail ! gmail ! com >=20 > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 12:48 PM Hans Henrik Bergan = > wrote: >=20 >> i don't like this part of the RFC: >=20 >=20 >>> There's a number of bug reports related to this. =46rom 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. >>=20 >> - this is wrong, DateTime::ISO8601 *is* illegal in ISO8601. >> quoting ISO8601:2004 section 4.3.3: >>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > Thanks for the reference. I've removed the mention of = DateTime::ISO8601 > from the RFC to make sure that the RFC text doesn't make any incorrect > statements. Not going to include a deprecation proposal as part of = this RFC > though -- from past discussions, the topic was controversial, so I = don't > want to include it this late in the process. I do understand why it was dropped entirely from RFC, but I do not = understand this part: > the topic was controversial Why is that? I did not found any information regarding this one on = internals mailing list. Kind regards.