Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76505
Return-Path: <ml@anderiasch.de>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 34146 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2014 06:14:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 14 Aug 2014 06:14:05 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ml@anderiasch.de; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ml@anderiasch.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain anderiasch.de designates 81.169.138.148 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ml@anderiasch.de
X-Host-Fingerprint: 81.169.138.148 ares.art-core.org  
Received: from [81.169.138.148] ([81.169.138.148:49897] helo=ares.art-core.org)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 42/50-30501-9A35CE35 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 02:14:02 -0400
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (p4FFB0046.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.251.0.70])
	by ares.art-core.org (mail.art-core.org) with ESMTPSA id E2B1A2EE01A;
	Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:13:57 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <53EC53A1.3020207@anderiasch.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:13:53 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: James Ward <james@notjam.es>, David Soria Parra <dsp@php.net>
CC: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAESVnVqd6m5-Dmhff0OiSFZxRNVBX8AvCQQmVYnDt7+gOJ-xug@mail.gmail.com> <BEDB9A15-DBC6-4C7F-BEA2-31779534EFA1@ajf.me> <CAESVnVrM6=TPVXbfSnV+jP=Lmiie83-fx6JdJcxENhLWbiZa6Q@mail.gmail.com> <slrnlunm9p.775.dsp@dsp.local> <CANjWU4gauv=RRe2mrSrfWBQsnG_qc1toEXOtGgEWiwSdeuSvUw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANjWU4gauv=RRe2mrSrfWBQsnG_qc1toEXOtGgEWiwSdeuSvUw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Mutliple defaults in switch statements
From: ml@anderiasch.de (Florian Anderiasch)

On 14.08.2014 00:12, James Ward wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure that a backwards compatibility break in a minor
> release would be considered non-controversial.
> 
> [...]
>
> I see this as a bad design choice in the language which should be
> rectified... just in a major version.
> 

As it doesn't even work (one is silently ignored) I wouldn't call it a
design choice, but a bug or oversight.

On the one hand I also agree with Sara that this could've easily been
fixed with a commit without RFC.

On the other hand I don't think it's an *urgent* fix and there's no
pressing need to have it in 5.next instead of next.

~Florian