Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:55571 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 92767 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2011 14:25:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Sep 2011 14:25:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=johannes@schlueters.de; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=johannes@schlueters.de; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain schlueters.de from 217.114.211.66 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: johannes@schlueters.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.114.211.66 config.schlueters.de Received: from [217.114.211.66] ([217.114.211.66:52225] helo=config.schlueters.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 96/11-17510-EB3F97E4 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:25:03 -0400 Received: from [192.168.2.230] (ppp-93-104-35-228.dynamic.mnet-online.de [93.104.35.228]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by config.schlueters.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C95BB7765E; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:24:59 +0200 (CEST) To: Matthew Weier O'Phinney Cc: internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <8C.A0.17510.E4DE97E4@pb1.pair.com> References: <4E790B82.6090805@akbkhome.com> <8C.A0.17510.E4DE97E4@pb1.pair.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:24:54 +0200 Message-ID: <1316615094.2810.5.camel@guybrush> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix From: johannes@schlueters.de (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=) On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 09:57 -0400, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > Reverting at this point adds a BC break on top of a BC break. Yes, the > original perhaps should not have happened (and likely wouldn't have, if > people had actually been testing the RCs...), but I'll argue again: the > new behavior is more correct. > > Reverting at this point is simply going to cause more headaches: > "package X works for PHP versions X.Y - 5.3.6, and from 5.3.9 to > 5.3.last" -- what a nightmare! Exactly. (while I, at this time, won't argue which behavior is more "correct") changing this in the first place was wrong. Changing it back is wrong again. We have two versions out with this change. These releases reach distributions, reach hosting companies, reach developer machines, ... changing the behavior again causes more trouble. With a proper heads up before 5.3.8 we might probably have reverted it there. johannes