Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:61782 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 43972 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2012 16:23:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Jul 2012 16:23:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 64.22.89.134 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 64.22.89.134 oxmail.registrar-servers.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [64.22.89.134] ([64.22.89.134:53072] helo=oxmail.registrar-servers.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 66/FB-19281-77D10105 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:23:21 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.200] (5ad32874.bb.sky.com [90.211.40.116]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oxmail.registrar-servers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 86E983E8005; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:23:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <50101D5F.7010407@ajf.me> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:22:55 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lester Caine CC: PHP internals References: <500EDCC7.1020402@ajf.me> <500EE3B9.8010902@ajf.me> <500EEA76.1030407@ajf.me> <501007A4.9000200@ajf.me> <50100C84.3020505@lsces.co.uk> <50101A51.10602@lsces.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <50101A51.10602@lsces.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Generators in PHP From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrew Faulds) On 25/07/12 17:09, Lester Caine wrote: > Ferenc Kovacs wrote: >> some/most of the E_STRICT messages are telling you about (possible) >> problems in >> your code. > The major hurdle here is 'static', and not being able to use a > function both statically or with $this. PEAR is currently throwing > these 'warnings' so is there problems in the PEAR code! > >> you can decide to ignore them, but imo it is a good thing that we >> tell those to >> the developer. > The 5.3 stance was 'just switch them off'. With 5.4 changing the rules > again, the 5.3 stance was no longer tenable so we had to rework all > the code which is now at the fix PEAR stage! So currently 'E_STATIC' > has to be switched off still since you can't have all the message > being generated. > >> the PHP4->PHP5 transition was pretty major, I'm surprised that your >> "php5 code" >> worked on php4 just fine. > As I have said before and will continue to say. I never USED PHP4, but > all of the projects I contribute to ran as clean on PHP4 as they did > on PHP5.0 and 5.1. PHP5.2 introduced the first major break, and was > the first time we had to worry about a 'transition' ... I don't > recognise 4to5 being major as long as you kept the PHP5 stuff that was > being used tidy. I would have preferred that PHP5.3 had simply been > called PHP6 and then a PHP5.2 branch maintained for security upgrades > then I don't think I'd be having nearly as much trouble these days. I > currently have sites down simply because something is not set right, > and I can't find the pigging problem. Not just PHP, but also Apache > ... Fortunately the PHP5.2 systems have not been taken down yet. > Do you use PHP objects and classes at all? Because if you do, then your PHP5 code SHOULDN'T work in PHP4. Perhaps it does, but I find that very suspicious. And you shouldn't rely on it. -- Andrew Faulds http://ajf.me/