Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:57757
Return-Path: <gwynne@darkrainfall.org>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 96606 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2012 01:59:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 6 Feb 2012 01:59:05 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=gwynne@darkrainfall.org; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=gwynne@darkrainfall.org; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain darkrainfall.org from 209.85.213.170 cause and error)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: gwynne@darkrainfall.org
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.213.170 mail-yx0-f170.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.213.170] ([209.85.213.170:63649] helo=mail-yx0-f170.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id E9/E3-60839-8E33F2F4 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:59:05 -0500
Received: by yenm5 with SMTP id m5so2505049yen.29
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.110.110 with SMTP id t74mr20244253yhg.121.1328493542407;
        Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f170.google.com (mail-we0-f170.google.com [74.125.82.170])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j28sm3254023yhe.14.2012.02.05.17.59.00
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:59:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by werm1 with SMTP id m1so4639595wer.29
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:58:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.139.197 with SMTP id c47mr2575502wej.15.1328493539227;
 Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:58:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.1.198 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:58:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CADajX4DNP0=X4TrEn3SsiHU4dULCssQxMW-A-PrksqfGS-As7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c9qoyzBf+FpBxMdX0FByy5xB+7x3xi3kNxdvWX=_uz=mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1202051644220.12865@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
	<A633CF2D7C7BED41B41F1E64F25507B8069D29BD20@MAILR001.mail.lan>
	<4F2EE658.2010504@sugarcrm.com>
	<CAORXhGK=adtVyXL5vZZyRLLz5c8J_y6Cz4rkPwfxBFXUcRm65Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADajX4DNP0=X4TrEn3SsiHU4dULCssQxMW-A-PrksqfGS-As7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 20:58:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMWw8k_VJ8p5Kxe1awHvL3mRGz2pkp-SAg7gQS+PU_TkAgQ99Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net>
Cc: Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecate and remove /e modifier from preg_replace
From: gwynne@darkrainfall.org (Gwynne Raskind)

On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 19:32, Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net> wrote:
> On 6 February 2012 04:37, Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com> wrote:
>> Deprecate and then remove, or just leave it in. "Make it optional
>> forever" just generates more nonportable PHP code. Ick.
> Huge +1 to that.
> Given the existence of preg_replace_callback() (as Stas noted above),
> my preference is for deprecation and then removal, but I think the
> overriding goal should be not introducing any more configuration
> dependent behaviour =E2=80=94 I'd rather be actively trying to kill some =
of
> that than ushering more in.

Strong +1 from me as well. Deprecate, remove. Do NOT get Suhoshin
involved in this. It's not.

-- Gwynne