Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:23365
Return-Path: <derick@php.net>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 64926 invoked by uid 1010); 15 May 2006 13:17:09 -0000
Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net
Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 64911 invoked from network); 15 May 2006 13:17:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 15 May 2006 13:17:09 -0000
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net
X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.94.239.5 jdi.jdi-ict.nl Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4)
Received: from ([82.94.239.5:48546] helo=jdi.jdi-ict.nl)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP
	id D4/E9-19568-45F78644 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 15 May 2006 09:17:09 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by jdi.jdi-ict.nl (8.13.6/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k4FDH56u009899;
	Mon, 15 May 2006 15:17:05 +0200
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:16:53 +0200 (CEST)
X-X-Sender: derick@localhost
To: Ilia Alshanetsky <ilia@prohost.org>
cc: Greg Beaver <cellog@php.net>, Steph Fox <steph@zend.com>,
	Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>, Pierre-Alain Joye <pajoye@php.net>,
	internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <2D48AB6B-8E19-4274-8E0C-AFEC7BA1702B@prohost.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0605151516320.7655@localhost>
References: <138663365.20060514205903@marcus-boerger.de>
	<038d01c676f8$ab9b3380$6602a8c0@foxbox> <44685D24.2000801@php.net>
	<2D48AB6B-8E19-4274-8E0C-AFEC7BA1702B@prohost.org>
X-Face: "L'&?Ah3MYF@FB4hU'XhNhLB]222(Lbr2Y@F:GE[OO;"F5p>qtFBl|yVVA&D{A(g3[C}mG:199P+5C'v.M/u@Z\![0b:Mv.[l6[uWl'
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] E_ALL changes in 5.2/6.0
From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans)

On Mon, 15 May 2006, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

> My opinion is that if we intend to make something stop working (give fatal
> error) in future releases we need to provide some form of notice be it
> E_STRICT or E_NOTICE to our users now, so they can anticipate the change. As
> far as inclusion of E_STRICT into E_ALL, I think this is a good idea, but is
> probably premature for the 5.2 release.

Then when do you suggest we add it (before 6.0)?

regards,
Derick