Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77677 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 4916 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2014 15:12:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 26 Sep 2014 15:12:24 -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] ([82.113.146.227:34369] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 54/20-02658-65285245 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:12:24 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C1D411A604; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:12:18 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:12:18 +0100 (BST) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Lars Strojny cc: PHP Internals In-Reply-To: <09838C57-306C-43A0-9AF3-0181A802CF01@strojny.net> Message-ID: References: <09838C57-306C-43A0-9AF3-0181A802CF01@strojny.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323329-1781210015-1411744309=:3594" Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Why_break_BC_if_you_don't_have_to=E2=80=BD_=28Was=3A_Re=3A_=5BPHP-DEV=5D_=5BVOTE=5D_Fix_list=28=29_behavior_inconsistency=29?= From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) --8323329-1781210015-1411744309=:3594 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Lars Strojny wrote: > On 25 Sep 2014, at 17:27, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: > [...] > >=20 > > I'm in favor of disabling for consistency as well, however, I wish a > > warning would be emitted. >=20 > Voted in favour of disabling as well but could easily live with the=20 > other option as everything is better then leaving the inconsistency=20 > there. So you'd rather have that already working code now stops working,=20 instead of new bits of code *starting* to work. That's incredibly=20 backwards. Certainly it would be less of a pain for our *users* to allow both options= =E2=80=BD cheers, Derick --8323329-1781210015-1411744309=:3594--