Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69653 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 20688 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2013 18:25:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Oct 2013 18:25:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rowan.collins@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rowan.collins@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.176 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rowan.collins@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.212.176 mail-wi0-f176.google.com Received: from [209.85.212.176] ([209.85.212.176:64772] helo=mail-wi0-f176.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 60/A6-12663-28B20625 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:25:07 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id l12so8875461wiv.15 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:25:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ELIRy07T1vZKqAguv7HmdktYv1wqCfjiLLUrrrkCO70=; b=h7Z/qJirg9jQJqO+iny1/SYBoHEoUI3bdXD1n6kdT0bNyMCXU/i271osK2ljRGiFdc I3UVmjVhvxqp4NrIOaZ7NSk8vKDIAFor9olPURdzE/OPFsXUq803rQZElPjfP89QvklY 1xTBfGvyW6L/HKWnAEEmdyE9HgBYQqqnkIOM5hiYMHZzRsV5EYoKkFqkstXOzOBVDdUR tO3uBrHJAMgqRfEg7n0nagx/BaiSc7zMOTdzJfKxvJZ+8C4jHAXK3/9shkVB0jNp0VZ2 1UI8o6hrAwkbO61aBJmzr9vTtD8FUrNLELb9X7/ioP94AZzpuZ5Bdg/El7T9wuaZwe3b 83kg== X-Received: by 10.194.93.105 with SMTP id ct9mr8646716wjb.6.1382034304068; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:25:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (cpc19-brig17-2-0-cust25.3-3.cable.virginmedia.com. [81.101.201.26]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ev4sm18735918wib.7.2013.10.17.11.25.03 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <52602B7A.3080509@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:24:58 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PHP Internals References: <525C631E.1050008@gmail.com> <1381853515.3980.195.camel@guybrush> <526002B4.9010808@gmail.com> <526022E1.1040406@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal to deprecate create_function() From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins) On 17/10/2013 18:52, Pierre Joye wrote: >> The only real difference I can see with create_function is that it is/was >> >more widely used; is that your concern, or do you see a fundamental >> >difference between the two situations? > I do. create_function is used for many very valid use cases, safely, > much more than /e ever was (and its security impact was much bigger). > Deprecating it does not help us nor our users at this stage. If create_function did not exist, would any of those use cases persuade you that it should? If not, it sounds like existing usage is the concern. Which is not to belittle the importance of that, I just want to be sure we're coming from the same place. -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]