Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:54621 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 13449 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2011 09:05:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Aug 2011 09:05:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rasmus@lerdorf.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rasmus@lerdorf.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com from 209.85.161.170 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.161.170 mail-gx0-f170.google.com Received: from [209.85.161.170] ([209.85.161.170:38158] helo=mail-gx0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 72/A2-31518-A51E84E4 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 05:05:30 -0400 Received: by gxk27 with SMTP id 27so3443199gxk.29 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:05:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.176.166 with SMTP id b26mr11498999yhm.149.1313399127523; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:05:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.200.5] (c-50-131-46-20.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.131.46.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r28sm3592185yhm.38.2011.08.15.02.05.26 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E48E155.9090601@lerdorf.com> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:05:25 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110627 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Laruence CC: Lester Caine , PHP Internals References: <4E48121A.3090007@sugarcrm.com> <4E48134E.4030708@sugarcrm.com> <4E481695.6040900@php.net> <4E483804.7070009@sugarcrm.com> <4E484037.2080107@php.net> <4E4843B0.70605@php.net> <4E48D6E7.2000203@lsces.co.uk> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE]strn(case)cmp supporting a negative length as its third paramter From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) On 08/15/2011 01:51 AM, Laruence wrote: > Hi Lester: > I totally agree with you about bc break things, > > but actully I don't think this proposal will bring a big bc break, > it's a new approach , but not a big change, > > I am meaning that the old codes can work fine because rarely codes > depends on a negative length. > > do you agree? I agree that this is not a "big" BC break. However, my argument is that small BC breaks like this are actually much worse than "big" BC breaks. A big and obvious BC break is usually easy to deal with. An accumulation of small subtle BC breaks that rarely hit you and then only on certain input strings, those are the ones that kill you. -Rasmus