Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:53498 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 17280 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2011 00:22:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Jun 2011 00:22:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.123 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.123 smtp123.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.123] ([67.192.241.123:54910] helo=smtp123.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 8D/02-25945-2D5310E4 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:22:43 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9B1E22A811F; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:22:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp2.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 317BB2A81D0; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:22:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E0135CE.6090908@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:22:38 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jordi Boggiano CC: "internals@lists.php.net" References: <4DFF7C28.30100@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Changed behaviour for strtr() From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! On 6/21/11 5:14 PM, Jordi Boggiano wrote: > Right now strtr('anything', 'anything', '') === 'anything', which > means that anyone relying on this behavior is doing something strange > and dumb imo, doing a function call for nothing. We could maybe say It does not matter if you approve or disapprove how people write their code - we can't break BC unless there's a VERY good reason. You never know in which situation with which combination of inputs which application may end up using this sequence of parameters and how changing it may break it. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227