Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66834 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 91865 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2013 14:57:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Mar 2013 14:57:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=steve@mrclay.org; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=steve@mrclay.org; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain mrclay.org from 50.22.11.19 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: steve@mrclay.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 50.22.11.19 bedford.accountservergroup.com Received: from [50.22.11.19] ([50.22.11.19:55032] helo=bedford.accountservergroup.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 38/1B-30100-FD803515 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:57:35 -0500 Received: from n128-227-137-35.xlate.ufl.edu ([128.227.137.35]:57346 helo=Distance-Ed-Sclay.local) by bedford.accountservergroup.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UKrnA-0009HA-BI for internals@lists.php.net; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:57:32 -0500 Message-ID: <515308DC.5070403@mrclay.org> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:57:32 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PHP Internals References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bedford.accountservergroup.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.php.net X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - mrclay.org Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] DateTimeImmutable From: steve@mrclay.org (Steve Clay) On 3/26/13 3:29 PM, Michael Wallner wrote: > I am concerned by the introduction of DateTimeImmutable extending > DateTime ... > If interoperability was in mind, it will not be given, because every > single API which has been written in the last seven years and has > DateTime in it's signature is potentially broken. The code may and > should be able to expect a modifiable instance of DateTime, which is > no longer guaranteed. ... > In my opinion, the only way to "solve" this issue is through > documentation, advocation, publication and providing DateTimeImmutable > as a sibling to DateTime. Much agreed. DateTimeImmutable is welcomed as a better design, but it is not a clean substitute for a DataTime object. Steve Clay -- http://www.mrclay.org/