Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:26170 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 64985 invoked by uid 1010); 23 Oct 2006 08:20:02 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 64969 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2006 08:20:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Oct 2006 08:20:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=permerror; 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] ([82.94.239.5:46578] helo=jdi.jdi-ict.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 9E/E2-41582-03B7C354 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 04:20:02 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jdi.jdi-ict.nl (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9N8JvRm023479; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:19:57 +0200 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:19:11 +0200 (CEST) X-X-Sender: derick@localhost To: Lukas Kahwe Smith cc: Pierre , Ilia Alshanetsky , RQuadling@googlemail.com, php internals LIST In-Reply-To: <453C7A0A.8050905@php.net> Message-ID: References: <10845a340610221045x2439b02alee7829425c902468@mail.gmail.com> <1B060546-A982-497C-8241-680044CDED15@prohost.org> <453C7372.3070104@php.net> <453C7A0A.8050905@php.net> 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 Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > > Yes, I see no point in pushing this responsibility into the userland, > > > especially since its a BC break appearently. > > > > There is no BC break: > > I meant, there would be a BC break if this feature gets dropped, which is the > point of the message, right? Yeah, but there is no point in calling mktime() without arguments as you can use time() doing the same. It's just a friendly hint that you're wasting CPU cycles. It's an E_STRICT message for ****s sake. regards, Derick