Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78742
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7CC00F2C-CE88-40A1-9A60-866F4A02F03B@ajf.me>
References: <CA+sv8zB4TC_N_cZ6W_CkGZLXhFNTw23z-R197qEOT1v-VR4ksQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH7=SZ710Pz5o80YSNRiAyRHivnoYt-A_OZbApDH7Jxc3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEKnhAFrSd0dMMER6rYpw2Y-SS4wMF1SLS83C-44RdiYdg+HHg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGAGxbbzM1tMdsRSho_NAkf0aHd3gMTuQDur8-gi=5t5Lx3tgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+sv8zCffhmWOZnEZ37L3c8JNGBnne6qnuEz+HhWoy2Ruc=UeQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEKnhAHRyzegk5JtT8XOHj1QunYSWn9Gf3L-wFJXkF5yXtpErA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH5Hy28_pYiTvTF_O1-0NmeDUbKCyZc2oBP-7pCSF3HjBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<7CC00F2C-CE88-40A1-9A60-866F4A02F03B@ajf.me>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 19:39:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH6DsN0q3711K9s2WBfoNVh=Q+C3-Xhx2OZZfAT8z943HA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net>, Juan Basso <jrbasso@gmail.com>, Chris Wright <cw@daverandom.com>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c15036595280050720e54b
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Add a new flag for json_encode
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--001a11c15036595280050720e54b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

>
> > On 5 Nov 2014, at 17:01, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 2, there is a chance that there are some exotic apps/systems which are
> > already depending on the fact that php will/was used to send out 1
> instead
> > of 1.0, and while we can break BC in a major release, the migration for
> > those people would be much easier if they just have to change/set some
> > options for their json_encode calls.
>
> It=E2=80=99d be even easier if we change nothing so they don=E2=80=99t ne=
ed to touch their
> JSON code.
>
>
of course, I'm just arguing that even if we later on decide that we want
this to be the default behavior, we would still keep the
JSON_PRESERVE_FACTIONAL_PART
flag, so that decision shouldn't affect whether or not we introduce the
flag now.


--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--001a11c15036595280050720e54b--