Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:26179 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 44105 invoked by uid 1010); 23 Oct 2006 10:49:47 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 44090 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2006 10:49:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Oct 2006 10:49:47 -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] ([82.94.239.5:43710] helo=jdi.jdi-ict.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id AD/30-41582-A4E9C354 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 06:49:47 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jdi.jdi-ict.nl (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9NAnh1E008439; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:49:43 +0200 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:48:58 +0200 (CEST) X-X-Sender: derick@localhost To: Pierre cc: Lukas Kahwe Smith , Ilia Alshanetsky , RQuadling@googlemail.com, php internals LIST In-Reply-To: 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, Pierre wrote: > On 10/23/06, Derick Rethans wrote: > > > 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. > > There is no point to keep this message, the fix is easy and does not > bring any additional troubles. A lot of applications use mktime() > without arguements, I did not read or hear any valid reason to do not > fix this issue. Stop whining about every code I contribute. It's staying. Derick