Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:5610 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 49602 invoked by uid 1010); 20 Nov 2003 10:37:04 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 49578 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2003 10:37:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mrelay-a.lmu.ac.uk) (160.9.128.16) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2003 10:37:04 -0000 Received: from lis-exchange1 ([160.9.35.1] helo=lis-exchange1.lmu.ac.uk) by mrelay-a.lmu.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AMm9P-0005Ab-6u for internals@lists.php.net; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:35:03 +0000 Received: by lis-exchange1.lmu.ac.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:34:57 -0000 Message-ID: <841D90E489448A4F804E1D1B95768BF7D4628E@lis-exchange3.lmu.ac.uk> To: "[PHP-DEV]" Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:34:56 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] E_STRICT From: M.Ford@lmu.ac.uk ("Ford, Mike [LSS]") On 19 November 2003 20:34, Steph wrote: > > Not to branch the discussion, but again: if we never plan on > > removing functions, why go to the trouble of deprecating them? > > Deprecation implies it will be removed. > > > > .. and as Andi said earlier, removal without loud and clear warning > will break thousands of scripts out there. Making users do something > special if they want to use their old code, is a much kinder option. > It might also kick people into updating those scripts before the > deprecated functions actually die. IMHO, progress from deprecated to removal should go through phases of increasing warning severity: (1) the proposed E_STRICT (or E_DEPRECATED) which will emit a "silent" warning. (2) a noisy warning -- at, say, E_WARNING level, which should catch most test servers but still be maskable on production boxes. (This could even have its own new warning level of, say, E_UNSUPPORTED.) (3) removal of the feature with an E_ERROR message. My 2-pennorth would be that (1) and (3) should only happen at an X.0.0 release, with (2) ocurring somewhere suitable in between. Cheers! Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Ford, Electronic Information Services Adviser, Learning Support Services, Learning & Information Services, JG125, James Graham Building, Leeds Metropolitan University, Beckett Park, LEEDS, LS6 3QS, United Kingdom Email: m.ford@leedsmet.ac.uk Tel: +44 113 283 2600 extn 4730 Fax: +44 113 283 3211