Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:34898
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain bitxtender.com from 80.237.132.12 cause and error)
Cc: "Rasmus Lerdorf" <rasmus@lerdorf.com>,
 "Chris Stockton" <chrisstocktonaz@gmail.com>,
 "php-dev" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <BE6A1233-5C13-43AD-9CAB-6BCF10048997@bitxtender.com>
To: "Andi Gutmans" <andi@zend.com>
In-Reply-To: <698DE66518E7CA45812BD18E807866CE012C2CB9@us-ex1.zend.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:08:05 +0100
References: <4794AE48.20005@daylessday.org>	 <38791.98.193.37.55.1201055548.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com> <e2e02fe0801231114vb4c7a15r6d037867972ad4e5@mail.gmail.com> <47979570.4010703@lerdorf.com> <698DE66518E7CA45812BD18E807866CE012C2CB9@us-ex1.zend.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch ASAP
From: dz@bitxtender.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Z=FClke?=)

How about allowing b"foo" in 5.3 (so people can start migrating their  
code early) and making unicode strings default in PHP7? :D


David



Am 23.01.2008 um 22:30 schrieb Andi Gutmans:

> Hi Rasmus, Chris,
>
> I agree with you which is why I suggested to not have a switch but to
> make the default string binary and require u"foo" for Unicode strings.
> It supports the existing community incl. hosters and as Chris and you
> pointed out, the broad community of non-"high class" developers to who
> we owe PHP's success.
> As you rightfully pointed out the broader world isn't ready for it yet
> and we have to evolve at the same pace. I think that going down that
> route incrementally is exactly what's going to support that need.
>
> Let's face it, the people who are struggling today will have an  
> immense
> relief when they get native Unicode capabilities in PHP 6 including a
> large amount of ICUs functionality. The u"foo" isn't what's going to
> take that away and PHP 6 will likely lead the pack in many regards  
> when
> it comes to Unicode support. For the people who don't care today and
> will have to care tomorrow, they get to move to PHP 6 without much  
> pain,
> they continue to benefit from their existing code and performance
> characteristics, and as they slowly evolve and find out that they do
> need to deal with it, it's there and readily available to them.
>
> Andi
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:rasmus@lerdorf.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:29 AM
>> To: Chris Stockton
>> Cc: php-dev
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics  
>> switch
>> ASAP
>>
>> I don't disagree with this, and that is actually why I insisted on
>> having the unicode-semantics switch from the early days of the  
>> Unicode
>> discussions, so you can blame me, again, if you consider it a bad
>> design
>> decision.
>>
>> My take on it was that just about all ISPs would run with Unicode
>> semantics off and that the Unicode semantics on mode was more geared
>> for
>> large standalone applications and sites that wanted the luxury of
>> working natively in their chosen character set without needing to
>> always
>> jump through hoops.
>>
>> If we get rid of the switch, then I agree that we can't make the
>> default
>> string IS_UNICODE.  We would be crippling the implementation and
> taking
>> a step backwards in terms of leading the way in Unicode adoption.   
>> The
>> longterm goal for just about everyone has got to be a "Unicode
>> everywhere" approach.  It used to be that the Web was primarily a
>> Western single-byte charset phenomena, but that hasn't been the case
>> for
>> years.  All major applications out there have implemented various
> hacks
>> to deal with these issues, some with more success than others.
>>
>> This is what PHP does.  We take common Web development pains and try
> to
>> reduce them.  Think back to the pains of XML parsing in PHP 3 and  
>> even
>> in PHP 4 compared to today.
>>
>> Ultimately we need to get to Unicode everywhere, and the Unicode
>> semantics switch was an acknowledgement that the world isn't quite
>> ready
>> for that yet.  But it sounds like the world isn't ready for the  
>> switch
>> either.  Without it, I am afraid we will never get there, and that  
>> may
>> just be something we have to live with.
>>
>> -Rasmus
>>
>> Chris Stockton wrote:
>>> I partially agree, I have been watching this discussion and it's
>> funny
>>> how we have such a class of high end developers saying to break old
>>> PHP code. But, the majority of the success of PHP is not due to this
>>> small class of high end developers, it's due to it's availability in
>> a
>>> shared hosting environment, and the ease of use for beginners, and
>> the
>>> oodles of fairly poor quality code that is easy to copy and paste
>> onto
>>> peoples websites.
>>>
>>> Look at the adoption of php4, many webhosts haven't even updated to
>>> PHP5 completely due to things like register_globals and small
>>> backwards compatibility breakage. The list of problems is small and
>>> correctable, if you give system engineers at all of these hosting
>>> companies the choice of A. Upgrade to php6 and drive support calls
>>> through the roof, or B. Stay at PHP4/5 for eternity until a more
>>> (insert your complaints / rants here) language comes along to
>> dethrone
>>> PHP.
>>>
>>> Problem is, PHP has been built to great success based on it's early
>>> foundation, but now a group of high class developers want it to be
>>> more then PHP was built onto. You will sacrifice it's success if
>>> backwards compatibility is not just, broke, but obliterated. Why
>>> change PHP's philosophy? Keep it easy for the new user, keep it
>>> successful, and make me work a little more when I want to implement
>> my
>>> "high class" development methodologies. I don't mind, I do it
>> already.
>>>
>>> I write this as a "high class" developer.
>>>
>>> -1
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>>
>>> On Jan 22, 2008 7:32 PM, Richard Lynch <ceo@l-i-e.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, January 21, 2008 8:38 am, Antony Dovgal wrote:
>>>>> 6 reasons why we must to get rid of The Switch ASAP
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>> I was +1...
>>>>
>>>> Until folks started posting that old PHP scripts won't run as-is in
>>>> PHP 6?...
>>>>
>>>> That's just daft...
>>>>
>>>> When my webhost upgrades to PHP 6, I need all my old scripts to
> just
>>>> keep on chugging away, as much as possible...
>>>>
>>>> I really think we're stuck with the default "string" being an
>>>> old-school binary string, unless you want to lose a LOT of users in
>> a
>>>> hurry, or have PHP 5 stick around forever and ever.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Some people have a "gift" link here.
>>>> Know what I want?
>>>> I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist.
>>>> http://cdbaby.com/from/lynch
>>>> Yeah, I get a buck. So?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>