Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:26194 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 29348 invoked by uid 1010); 23 Oct 2006 18:52:48 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 29333 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2006 18:52:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Oct 2006 18:52:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=helly@php.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=helly@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net from 81.169.182.136 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: helly@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 81.169.182.136 ajaxatwork.net Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from [81.169.182.136] ([81.169.182.136:49716] helo=strato.aixcept.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CA/5D-39788-F7F0D354 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:52:47 -0400 Received: from baumbart.mbo (dslb-084-063-002-187.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.63.2.187]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by strato.aixcept.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74879610282; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:52:44 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:52:55 +0200 Reply-To: Marcus Boerger X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <905028149.20061023205255@marcus-boerger.de> To: Pierre Cc: Derick Rethans , Lukas Kahwe Smith , Ilia Alshanetsky , , php internals LIST In-Reply-To: References: <10845a340610221045x2439b02alee7829425c902468@mail.gmail.com> <1B060546-A982-497C-8241-680044CDED15@prohost.org> <453C7372.3070104@php.net> <453C7A0A.8050905@php.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Why is mktime(0,0,0,0,0,0) E_STRICT? From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger) Hello Pierre, shouldn't we use E_NOTICE here? obviously there is something wrongwith those calls and other functions that check their input typically raise them as E_NOTICE or E_WARNING. In this case I personally would prefer E_NOTICE and think E_STRICT is wrong. If we had E_DEPRECATED we could argue. When really dropping supportfor these values/calls they would lead to an E_ERROR in later versions so E_DEPRECATED now would be correct. Since we don't have E_DEPRECATEDright now and E_STRICT is used for deprecated stuff as well it makes sense. But i alsoagree with Rasmus that this is a domain error, thus E_NOTICE seems to be the right way after all. All in all and that is the main reason i am replying is that at least to me this is another proof that we need E_DEPRECATED rather now (as in 5.2.0) than later. best regards marcus p.s.: I am neither disagreeing nor agreeing with you in particular here Pierre, your mail is just the last one i read in this thread... Monday, October 23, 2006, 8:00:13 PM, you wrote: > Hello, > On 10/23/06, Derick Rethans wrote: >> gmmktime() without parameters is broken in PHP 4 anyway. If you don't >> give it arguments than it should default to the current date >> and hour (in GMT for gmmktime() and in localtime for >> mktime()). In both places this should result in the same timestamp, >> which gmmktime() doesn't even do on PHP 4: > Our point is to do not raise any warning in these two functions when > they are called without arguments. Misunderstanding of the GMT idea by > the previous implementation is another topic. > I do not understand why it is a problem to add three lines to > php_mktime and forget about it rather than adding more pain to the > e_strict stack. > You like to use only time()? fine, but we still have no way to use > "gmmktime();" without warning and we are forced to change our mktime() > calls, for no reason. > --Pierre Best regards, Marcus