Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64019 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 34511 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2012 08:41:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Nov 2012 08:41:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 173.203.6.139 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 173.203.6.139 smtp139.ord.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [173.203.6.139] ([173.203.6.139:48853] helo=smtp139.ord.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 89/D7-20662-3B39CA05 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 03:41:24 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp26.relay.ord1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 28EC61C00C8; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 03:41:21 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp26.relay.ord1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id B42B41C00C3; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 03:41:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <50AC93B0.4040801@sugarcrm.com> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:41:20 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Philip Olson CC: Adam Harvey , PHP Developers Mailing List References: <23CB37F5-E956-4A5C-8ECC-7CF347A9086C@roshambo.org> <50AC6A7A.6030504@sugarcrm.com> <50AC75EE.60100@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Where did the _logo_ functions go? From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > It's the inconsistency that bothers me. I think a rule like "Never remove > a ~function without it first emitting E_DEPRECATED" can be followed 100% > of the time, and don't see this as a bureaucratic rule but instead think > this consistency would make PHP better. I guess that's where we disagree. I think in this particular case the change does make PHP better, and I do not value consistency for its sake and having 100% for its sake. If there were any practical reason why the change is wrong, that'd be different matter of course. P.S. I of course did not mean you or anybody else when talking about stupidly following rules, I just described a situation we want to avoid. Sorry if I sounded offensive, it was not my intent. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227