Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:26155 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 18727 invoked by uid 1010); 22 Oct 2006 21:17:00 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 18712 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2006 21:17:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Oct 2006 21:17:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net from 82.94.239.5 cause and error) 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] ([82.94.239.5:45176] helo=jdi.jdi-ict.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 2A/C8-54754-9CFDB354 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:16:59 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jdi.jdi-ict.nl (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9MLGsn7002655; Sun, 22 Oct 2006 23:16:54 +0200 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 23:16:11 +0200 (CEST) X-X-Sender: derick@localhost To: Richard Quadling cc: php internals LIST In-Reply-To: <10845a340610221045x2439b02alee7829425c902468@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <10845a340610221045x2439b02alee7829425c902468@mail.gmail.com> 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] Why is mktime(0,0,0,0,0,0) E_STRICT? From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Richard Quadling wrote: > With the recent discussion on E_STRICT and the waste of cpu cycles ... > > Why is mktime(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) generating E_STRICT? > > What is unstrict about this? > > Why is important to use time() instead? It's quicker. regards, Derick -- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org