Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76214
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c87gQ5BxGkE54u6cUL1oY1pyVJLxc69REy0ynosqvjCEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <482DEC36-8A5A-4840-910A-3C63CA3A503B@lonnylot.com>
	<B2A0452A-354A-4733-A3D7-0E8ABE61DAC6@ajf.me>
	<CAEZPtU7HQ5Y-h_36pTBb_2NMZfo=UEzwWKHL4k630y+Jbh7XYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<77BCF83D-F7AF-4853-8C40-D07D1CFFF8DE@lonnylot.com>
	<CAEZPtU6fuofAo7yy98qj8ijymdySukd1_5YJCc=bifLF=btasA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CB8034ED-00AA-4FCA-B368-61E579F9D0C8@lonnylot.com>
	<CAEZPtU5TMp20iTSU3=Bz7nCT_Mn7piFKyW2zr9vv=NwyzGaOSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c87gQ5BxGkE54u6cUL1oY1pyVJLxc69REy0ynosqvjCEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 09:33:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU5F3_rqJO1G6VFUjqL2J0YHC9KP6a7=W1dgxijmuaxNFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: Lonny Kapelushnik <lonny@lonnylot.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] imagettf* deprecation/removal
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 27, 2014 8:17 PM, "Lonny Kapelushnik" <lonny@lonnylot.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Jul 27, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> However the idea to add yet other warnings/notices to ext/gd is not
>> >> something I like to see in GD. I will rather remove many for php-next
>> >> instead of adding more. Also some new font APIs may as well make the
>> >> whole ttf ones less relevant, see the upstream version.
>> >
>> >
>> > Pierre,
>> >
>> > I would only want to add E_DEPRECATED to the function calls if we are
>> actually going to remove them.
>>
>> Hm. I do not think it is a good idea. As I said, I am really not willing
>> to
>> add more warnings for the sake of adding them.
>>
>> There is no difference in the implementation whether one uses these
>> functions or the other. A note in the doc stating that should suffice. Or
>> do you have an argument to still do it? What would the win?
>
>
> If there are two functions doing essentially the same thing, we should
> remove one of them. In order to remove a function it must first be
> deprecated. The proposal sounds reasonable to me. There's no need to keep
> around legacy cruft through aliases.

I am not arguing about that for next but the addition of yet another
warning with no gain.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org