Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25361 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 89799 invoked by uid 1010); 15 Aug 2006 08:10:33 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 89784 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2006 08:10:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Aug 2006 08:10:33 -0000 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php_lists@realplain.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 69.179.208.43 msa3-mx.centurytel.net Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from [69.179.208.43] ([69.179.208.43:42437] helo=msa3-mx.centurytel.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.8 r(12549M)) with ESMTP id 5B/75-50872-07181E44 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 04:10:25 -0400 Received: from pc1 (207-119-220-231.dyn.centurytel.net [207.119.220.231]) by msa3-mx.centurytel.net (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k7F8ALK3019525; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:10:21 -0500 Message-ID: <005201c6c042$41111190$0201a8c0@pc1> To: , "Stefan Walk" References: <005301c6bec7$783e5c80$0201a8c0@pc1> <006d01c6bedd$c86c7a00$0201a8c0@pc1> <35405.67.108.68.40.1155598740.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com> <4858f9d90608150020o57af7a9dmeffa1ac4a81d98a9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:10:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] array_count_values bug: mishandling of numbers with leading whitespace From: php_lists@realplain.com ("Matt W") Hi Stefan, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Walk" Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 > BC has already been broken Yes, and forget BC, it's a bug. > and while BC breaks are OK in major > version changes (4 -> 5) OK, but 1) this wasn't intentionally changed, and 2) it wasn't in a major version. > they are not in minor version changes... This was really bad then since they "changed it" (broke it) in *5.0.2*. And they fixed other bugs (or "broke BC") in the same version. > and > if you change this behaviour again you are not "undoing" a BC break Yeah, you're putting it back to how it was in 5.0.0 and 5.0.1 (and 4.x of course), which is how it should be. > but you are breaking it again. No. And they did more in 5.0.2 anyway. > Regards, > Stefan Matt