Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:23804
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <06d401c68453$b518a100$6602a8c0@foxbox>
Reply-To: "Steph Fox" <steph@zend.com>
To: "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>, <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <649570026.20060531004803@marcus-boerger.de>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 03:44:06 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="Windows-1252";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] E_STRICT
From: steph@zend.com ("Steph Fox")

Hi Marcus,

>  right now the fate of E_STRICT error messages is uncertain. A few
> people think those should change to fatal after a reasonable amount of
> time, is two years (e.g. 5.0.0) reasonable. A few even think a minor
> version like 5.1 to 5.2 is enough but the majortiy (at least i guess
> so) wants the change only on a major version change like 5.0 to 6.0.

I'd back the majority over this. Changes from E_STRICT to fatal in minor 
versions is out of the question; most people still use PHP 4.3.*, and this 
is something you're failing to consider here.

<snip />

> So the RFC goes: Extend the manual to specify that issues reported by
> E_STRICT messages are most likely to become fatal errors in the next
> major version.
>
> Comment from myself: To have this working we need tests. For a start
> we need tests that trigger any E_STRICT present in php/zend c code.
> It might as well halp to turn on E_STRICT in E_ALL but oh , i say no
> more.

You already know I agree with you over that, but thousands don't.

The real problem when we're talking about moving PHP into this century is 
that most people liked it as it was...  We really, really need an easy 
upgrade path, preferably an automated one. And we still don't have that 
today.

- Steph