Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:54624
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: laruence@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4E48E155.9090601@lerdorf.com>
References: <CABBJUpfez0_CKkiFSVVmYfxbF7H30Av2y9D1Nww6PE5v6dKPUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAM4sM9Hxn=2FJ4d51ozbKuGM4e3BMMUQ38WsEs27WAu919XSjg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpdONFHHYpdr4RvxGRyJ13M9yONVzb-aSjx33QKziALkLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpeoDnuT7eXC6UzUFQni0V0zH_mivHiX=3j=UjCKJK-z7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpdXUOjyWpXeRovNaFgDMQHfM5MkXXto+Rybej2u+W4xFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1108141219470.4043@whisky>
	<CAH-PCH6_sTBGqCrCp-pgdi3DJfFX-3ZsvSr8ibbrOtKQP0qpTA@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1108141359340.4043@whisky>
	<4E48121A.3090007@sugarcrm.com>
	<4E48134E.4030708@sugarcrm.com>
	<4E481695.6040900@php.net>
	<4E483804.7070009@sugarcrm.com>
	<4E484037.2080107@php.net>
	<4E4843B0.70605@php.net>
	<CABBJUpfmV23H2MgkCi60MeLN1dp9Qe+aJJj1y9F0GWfSXL_ygA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHMUw2ENKWjgQH_-eA4uP94yjw1pvQ50OoEUx+wZ5AmwhMfEoA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpcO25NHLpttro+OaEvG0Unf+us1q+wn2fpKy6XzpfUA4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E48D6E7.2000203@lsces.co.uk>
	<CABBJUpfHGHFHniUQ1yV-vZ5-J99CG38uH2bnH17-e_9i=kOASA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E48E155.9090601@lerdorf.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:26:38 +0800
Message-ID: <CABBJUpfM29p8StEMv50sY_3q0bbbNpFdQ8WbKrezz=ZXU9jq8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE]strn(case)cmp supporting a negative length as its
 third paramter
From: laruence@php.net (Laruence)

Hi Rasmus:

   could we well docuemnt this(changelog) to avoding such bad thing happen?

   and sure,  I agree and know what you are worried,  also I am very
respect you .

   so here is the thing,  if I can't get your support, I think I
should darw back the proposal.

thanks

2011/8/15 Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>:
> On 08/15/2011 01:51 AM, Laruence wrote:
>> Hi Lester:
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0I totally agree with you about bc break things,
>>
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0but actully I don't think this proposal will bring a big bc=
 break,
>> it's a new approach , but not a big change,
>>
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0I am meaning that the old codes can work fine because rarel=
y codes
>> depends on a negative length.
>>
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0do 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
>



--=20
Laruence =C2=A0Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/