Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:57333 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 47006 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2012 19:54:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Jan 2012 19:54:55 -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 209.85.210.170 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.210.170 mail-iy0-f170.google.com Received: from [209.85.210.170] ([209.85.210.170:53698] helo=mail-iy0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 66/13-29913-E879C0F4 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:54:55 -0500 Received: by iaby26 with SMTP id y26so1469613iab.29 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:54:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.222.233 with SMTP id qp9mr3413732igc.1.1326225292158; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:54:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.200.5] (c-50-131-44-225.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [50.131.44.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l28sm266416536ibc.3.2012.01.10.11.54.50 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:54:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F0C9789.1020407@lerdorf.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:54:49 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111124 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Philip Olson CC: Pierre Joye , Ferenc Kovacs , internals@lists.php.net References: <776626C5-4546-4297-9328-6FEA6385B1B0@roshambo.org> <59C30E1D-C101-4696-AB21-EE167AD56277@roshambo.org> In-Reply-To: <59C30E1D-C101-4696-AB21-EE167AD56277@roshambo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] disabling ereg From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) On 01/10/2012 11:33 AM, Philip Olson wrote: > Any objections? Regardless of deprecation status, this option > should be available. Or if not, why? The main reason is that we are not done removing all the dependencies. This is a large deprecation that is going to require the process to span multiple versions. We could add a way to disable it, but it is going to break some extensions in ways that are not obvious to the user. -Rasmus