Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:20012 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 37325 invoked by uid 1010); 15 Nov 2005 17:16:48 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 37308 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2005 17:16:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Nov 2005 17:16:48 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 69.60.120.90 iconoclast.caedmon.net Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from ([69.60.120.90:43517] helo=iconoclast.caedmon.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id DE/D2-07637-EF71A734 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:16:47 -0500 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by iconoclast.caedmon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ec4P3-00078B-00; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:15:29 -0500 Message-ID: <437A186E.5030206@caedmon.net> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:18:38 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pierre.php@gmail.com CC: internals@lists.php.net, Jani Taskinen References: <437A0D24.6030701@caedmon.net> <20051115181307.18c2b27b@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20051115181307.18c2b27b@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] date() behaviour changed in 5.1? From: sean@caedmon.net (Sean Coates) Pierre wrote: > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:59:32 +0200 (EET) > sniper@iki.fi (Jani Taskinen) wrote: > > >> 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..) > > > PHP is losely typed, I see nothing wrong to pass an integer as string > there (for example, imagecreate("100", "100"); works). FWIW, I don't mind forcing an INT here (or an all-numeric string) -- I know my code was wrong; I admitted this in the first mail. We need to warn users about it, if we do, though. I'm only bringing this up because the behaviour _changed_ from 5.0 S