Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:18825 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 44010 invoked by uid 1010); 13 Sep 2005 12:49:18 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 43995 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2005 12:49:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Sep 2005 12:49:18 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 204.11.219.139 lerdorf.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from ([204.11.219.139:59649] helo=colo.lerdorf.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id 3C/E3-58045-DCAC6234 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 08:49:18 -0400 Received: from [192.168.2.102] (CPE00131063dcac-CM0011aec551ea.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [65.49.170.67]) (authenticated bits=0) by colo.lerdorf.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id j8DCn8fR000578 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:49:10 -0700 Message-ID: <4326CAC3.3080708@lerdorf.com> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:49:07 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Macintosh/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pierre.php@gmail.com CC: internals References: <432534E4.9020602@lerdorf.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ref fix revisited From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) Just got back from Sri Lanka and am catching up on email. But in general I don't agree with your statement that things that are quiet in 5.0.4 must be quiet in 5.0.5. Quietly corrupting memory doesn't really work. Sometimes we need to break things slightly to fix things. My message was more about if there was a better way to fix it. I looked at the code and couldn't tell if it was somehow possible to catch this on the write instead of on the call. It sounds like that isn't possible. The second approach to try to regain some backwards compatibility is to make some of our internal functions aware of the fact that they are being passed a ref to a temp var and if so pretend it wasn't passed by reference. -Rasmus Pierre Joye wrote: > Hi Rasmus, > > You start a new thread for my question, maybe you will get more > answers or at least better ones. > > If it is a reference or not, I do not care, it should not "act" > differently. Understand that a quiet code in 5.0.4 must be quiet in > 5.0.5. > > If we add notices in 5.1.0 and then make them fatal in 5.2.0, I'm > fine. People will have time to migrate and "fix" their code. > > Regards, > > --Pierre >