Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65930
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:01:18 +0000 (GMT)
To: Sanford Whiteman <swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com>
cc: Nikita Popov <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <1867201214.20130215192512@cypressintegrated.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1302191200530.5054@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
References: <CAF+90c9corAaNo_ksDU+L99NtQ-Oa86e+tGP9=x09x6CUvdzZA@mail.gmail.com> <1867201214.20130215192512@cypressintegrated.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Questions regarding DateTimeImmutable
From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans)

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013, Sanford Whiteman wrote:

> I think it was done to ease adoption even though it was known to
> violate LSP. To quote Stas, "As for established practice, everybody
> expects DateTime, so IMHO we should leave DateTime as base class even
> though it's not strictly OO-pure."
> 
> This way does let users sub in DateTimeImmutable more easily and patch
> over a ton of unintended -- maybe not even fully noted or understood
> -- defects in their apps? I dunno.

Yes, that's exactly the idea.

cheers,
Derick