Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76783 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 33383 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2014 20:55:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Aug 2014 20:55:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:55571] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 0C/22-22336-7BC56F35 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:55:20 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28E91117905; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:55:16 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:55:15 +0100 (BST) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Marc Bennewitz cc: PHP Developers Mailing List In-Reply-To: <53F64A5A.6080803@mabe.berlin> Message-ID: References: <53F64A5A.6080803@mabe.berlin> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] On BC and not being evil (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Integer Semantics) From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Marc Bennewitz wrote: > On 21.08.2014 17:30, Derick Rethans wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Kris Craig wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > > > > > > I have made an RFC which would make some small changes to how integers > > > > are handled, targeted at PHP 7: > > > > > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/integer_semantics > > > > > > > > Thoughts and questions are appreciated. Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > And since you're targetting the next major release, BC isn't an issue. > > Can I please urge people to not take Backwards Compatibility issues so > > lightly. Please think really careful when you suggest to break Backwards > > Compatibility, it should only be considered if there is a real and > > important reason to do so. Changing binary comparison is not one of those, > > changing behaviour for everybody regarding ``<<`` and ``>>`` is not one of > > those, and subtle changes to what syntax means is certainly not one of > > them. > I'm on you if you say "Please think really careful when you suggest to break > Backwards Compatibility". It's very important in so much ways. *BUT* you are > very unlikely in the cost of the 2 RFCs. The "cost"? > First I don't see an comment of you in the Binary String Comparison > RFC and I think you should do your misgivings there instead of wring > this untopic. Each BC break should be discussed carefully by it's own! Because it's not worth my time. I don't feel it necessary to comment if so many people already have spoken out against it: Julien[1], Sara[2], Rasmus[3], Adrian[4], Johannes[5]. Frankly, I don't understand why you haven't given up on this as nobody has shown support. [1] http://news.php.net/php.internals/76639 [2] http://news.php.net/php.internals/76613 [3] http://news.php.net/php.internals/76615 [4] http://news.php.net/php.internals/76614 [5] http://news.php.net/php.internals/76658 cheers, Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine