Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120322 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 66911 invoked from network); 17 May 2023 07:35:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 17 May 2023 07:35:31 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F13541804C6 for ; Wed, 17 May 2023 00:35:30 -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=-1.9 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,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-ot1-f43.google.com (mail-ot1-f43.google.com [209.85.210.43]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 17 May 2023 00:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-6a984993740so231257a34.2 for ; Wed, 17 May 2023 00:35:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1684308929; x=1686900929; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=QAxAtPQj7d0J7YijIoUjqpCbhtnH6cAZinRy9pvK3SY=; b=FlMMOBF8e4CqreTAJq4iRKQyjQVmmynfpgr/00mfnwkgcStzzEiEHu9PWCAQu878tW YuAxax3Zv7dzhUe8Q1cLdWYtLOnf0BP37ZxHnIXfVLqL2zLMkdyIoJsqSJnRNepPUWao tTcBKpXJ8rG5m+rtpQkt/ytRLaI50SkbTpotbQUO+5Cfm8sTQwpK34FUN5Ec8B8kXFuI h+FGCecYu2axl0ZcXnCClvVaJxRG5hlG4q8VA5QRgCbzHHg5Sh08wd5B0/RwMVdWzroj GFwBuqeJLTgV3wrEy25XXPdmBXT4jiDLVjfPt/QzePuI/QmTs3PrSA9VwyP3DAIBCB/4 6mIw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1684308929; x=1686900929; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=QAxAtPQj7d0J7YijIoUjqpCbhtnH6cAZinRy9pvK3SY=; b=Pu6xXWFrRG5KxKzl0R92PC80Sn7cITt3mPWlgJcEkLPdtJ335YnsCQiJTQSZ9x0iNV g4s/KFly8YvkbvBrX3ZC8B3RUL4W46mYEBcldx/78FQchHfpkBZstj81voFVCZlGz4m6 EQZ7WLJdfut9ukjKj2NWHhtx8/jRXrq32Nwu62toAMZ/PQr6c5LdVuocSFaAs+VBbxNo Xf9ImQcUik7vgCU354ipRzOET0UOjSfI2rp0z4IuakVHKKZNltbw9mjC//Cw006htewV vVLQoCsdAkYq6tzP7af7WDU5q6txvRWmlG49t8YKvikPdm6ihVtWS7nyj4laWZfTKlM5 CqRA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxM0PW/9MZORmsmrEiGm4/38Xa0u3fJlxD9/jbALCN8JLyAWe1/ q3GIsZQhqvvJDU1stgFVkZc9JRgrmJKVg6kRY/i6xkDe28k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ60DTZMn7dyUHYW5H1ZlQNMCAQdZrebzv2B5fqeLZOTFVB1BcIPJDWohsuEHFp20k4mnxKJgS6OavF3yKccNzk= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7f9a:0:b0:6ab:b7b:f6f1 with SMTP id t26-20020a9d7f9a000000b006ab0b7bf6f1mr14386471otp.9.1684308929541; Wed, 17 May 2023 00:35:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 09:35:18 +0200 Message-ID: To: PHP Internals List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006ffb5d05fbdebb6d" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Deprecate functions with overloaded signatures From: kocsismate90@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?=) --0000000000006ffb5d05fbdebb6d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Everyone, Yesterday, I updated the voting choices based on Rowan's suggestions. I also picked a few signatures where only one migration path is proposed (the short one). Now, I'd be curious what to do with the FFI methods in question ( https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate_functions_with_overloaded_signatures#ffi= cast_ffinew_and_ffitype). .. Especially, it would be very nice to hear about FFI users' opinions. Also, there was feedback about the session_set_save_handlers() function name that it shouldn't resemble this much to the original session_set_save_handler(). Rowan suggested using the session_set_save_handler_functions() name. While I'm not a big fan of this choice, I'd be interested in if there is any other idea? Particularly, I have been wondering for a long time, why the original function includes "save_handler" in its name? The passed in handlers are not just "save", but also other kinds of handlers (e.g. "read"). So I'm considering to use something like "session_set_handlers()" or "session_set_handler_callbacks()". What do you think about these names? If we manage to answer these questions then I'd like to start the vote not long afterwards. Regards, M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 --0000000000006ffb5d05fbdebb6d--