Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:20008
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:59:32 +0200 (EET)
Reply-To: Jani Taskinen <sniper@iki.fi>
To: Sean Coates <sean@caedmon.net>
cc: internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <437A0D24.6030701@caedmon.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0511151858240.25831@arfg.argcubovn.sv>
References: <437A0D24.6030701@caedmon.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] date() behaviour changed in 5.1?
From: sniper@iki.fi (Jani Taskinen)


     If you pass bad data to a function, it should not warn you?
     I'd rather have it as a FATAL error. :)

     Nothing to fix here, move along. (and fix your code..)

     --Jani


On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Sean Coates wrote:

>
> I discussed this with Rasmus and Derick, yesterday, but I don't think we
> came to a conclusion..
>
> Is this a bug, or intended behaviour?
>
> sean@iconoclast:~$ /opt/src/php-5.0.4/sapi/cli/php -r 'echo date("r",
> "1132003418 ") ."\n";'
> Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:23:38 -0500
> sean@iconoclast:~$ /opt/src/php5-200511131530/sapi/cli/php -r 'echo
> date("r", "1132003418 ") ."\n";'
>
> Warning: date() expects parameter 2 to be long, string given in Command
> line code on line 1
>
> sean@iconoclast:~$
>
> The conclusion SEEMED to be that it's a bug in the parameter parsing API
> (as date() now uses the new API).
>
> I think that the 2nd param should automatically be cast to an int. Yes,
> I realize that the documentation says it should be an int, and I'm ok
> with that (the extraneous whitespace is my fault). I think it should be
> mentioned in the release docs if it won't be fixed, though.
>
> Also, a warning is pretty harsh. A E_NOTICE is more representative of
> what's happening. Also, in the E_WARNING scenario above, date() no
> longer returns the expected result (based on <=5.0 code).
>
> So: is this a bug? If so, I can send a report -- I just didn't want it
> to get bogussed without discussion.
>
> If not -- I really think this should be fixed before 5.1.. I realize
> it's very late in the game, though.
>
> Opinions?
>
> S
>
>