Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:44023 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 26279 invoked from network); 18 May 2009 11:38:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 May 2009 11:38:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cschneid@cschneid.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cschneid@cschneid.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain cschneid.com from 195.226.6.51 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cschneid@cschneid.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 195.226.6.51 darkcity.gna.ch Linux 2.6 Received: from [195.226.6.51] ([195.226.6.51:41958] helo=mail.gna.ch) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 9D/00-25779-1A8411A4 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 07:38:11 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkcity.gna.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF7C11EDD4; Mon, 18 May 2009 13:38:06 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gna.ch Received: from mail.gna.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gna.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id czRjtD4zPzpS; Mon, 18 May 2009 13:38:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.72] (84-75-97-139.dclient.hispeed.ch [84.75.97.139]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by darkcity.gna.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A722B11D755; Mon, 18 May 2009 13:38:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4A11489C.6060101@cschneid.com> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 13:38:04 +0200 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081227) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Shadle CC: PHP Development References: <4A0C9516.8060808@gmail.com> <4A0D2648.3050802@lerdorf.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Why does $_REQUEST exist? From: cschneid@cschneid.com (Christian Schneider) Michael Shadle wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > >> Confusing new code is totally different from breaking existing code. > > True but aren't some changes in 6.0 at least (and possibly 5.3) going > to require code changes? Or is it still going to be "legacy enough" ? There's a big difference between changing some rare features (and no, 5.3 needs - almost no to - no changes with the code bases I know) and removing something *everybody* uses. Apart from the fact that _REQUEST is not evil per se, the new setting request_order turns it into something sane again... So please let's end (at least the public) discussion here ;-) - Chris