Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:62930
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU4DLtwoBYGihDquzbj23rhL0BNJ5v+WvY=HL6HVvX99Hg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMUwpuRdHMmbYSj1nqbKSdV=23SA20J0udaU-CYmHBRbZ40NeQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7Nue-XVHeeSpt2ff82_F5Y7-vcB38UHoDqaLfY+1BnfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nHcajD1zkUbnPo8QtK3CEO4cx7Vwk0RGOV6vGBhdK=vJQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU4DLtwoBYGihDquzbj23rhL0BNJ5v+WvY=HL6HVvX99Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:00:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nFjQtktTVCs=6ovSfEpwtAYo+m=34uPEMJasniE_qBngA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: jpauli <jpauli@php.net>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d040122e9c964aa04c95d9292
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] What is our definition of a "Backward Compatibility Break"
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

--f46d040122e9c964aa04c95d9292
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Pierre,

it does not break code, also that happens only and only from 5.x to
> 5.x+1 and should not happen from 5.x.y to 5.x.y+1 for example (or on
> very rare cases).


I agree it should not happen from 5.x.y to 5.x.y+1. But it definitely does
break code... Not all, but at least some...


>
> > I guess my point is that the line between a BCB and a minor BCB is a lot
> > finer and a lot more subjective that it seems on the surface. Is adding a
> > new language feature with a new keyword a BCB (since existing
> functionality
> > using that keyword is now a parse error),
>
> We add new features, that's no BC break as the feature did not exist
> before. Keyword is a problem, but we have to live with for now.


Well, for a very limited subset of features possible sure...


> > My take on it is this:
> >
> > If you can solve the "break" using nothing but static analysis and a
> static
> > conversion "script", then it's a minor break. So new keywords would be
> fine
> > (you could find/replace function yield() with function yield2() really
> > easily). But changing the semantics of code (returning an array instead
> of
> > an int, changing how references are passed, etc) would require developer
> > interaction to fix, and as such would not be minor.
> >
> > And one point on what classifies as a BC break: Everything. Any change
> will
> > break BC in some way. Even adding a function is a BC break since existing
> > code may use the same function names.
>
> Why we added namespace, no issue (well for 5.3+ :).
>
> > Fixing a segfault is a BC break as
> > well, as it's changing the way it works.
>
> That's really a totally wrong example.


I chose it for that specific reason. The line is blurry if taken literally
(which many do)...

Anthony

--f46d040122e9c964aa04c95d9292--