Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85252
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c9NDy-zDpZ-sT4VGXOx2T=71Fvh8Dkb1GZUhT=UhjGKpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <885a29db28bc96b2d3cd2ac96907e39f@mail.gmail.com>
	<077401d06268$2b597c30$820c7490$@php.net>
	<CA+kxMuRG7RV74uD=pJxB2M3LS9Ty1xB-+TN_ddMpYg4xgtjpwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<28871A37-A2F8-465F-8717-A116B8AA78C7@zend.com>
	<CAF+90c9NDy-zDpZ-sT4VGXOx2T=71Fvh8Dkb1GZUhT=UhjGKpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:34:55 +1100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU7YJEFuk_PSreCbD3Wwy0jjUg+AW2=ijkKKdM0hYS1yaQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>, 
	"francois@php.net" <francois@php.net>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Question/comment about the Array to String conversion RFC
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:04 AM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>
>> > On 19 =D7=91=D7=9E=D7=A8=D7=A5 2015, at 19:40, Dan Ackroyd <danack@bas=
ereality.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > You are being dumb here as well. We try to avoid breaking code in
>> > point releases. This BC break can only be done at a major version.
>>
>> Technically, we're not allowed to move from from a working feature into =
a
>> removed one without a deprecation phase.
>>
>
> I don't think this is true. There is no requirement for us to deprecate
> something before we remove it. Deprecation is a courtesy to our users in
> cases where a heavily used feature is being dropped.

I think we do not need to argue about the impact of having something
generating a fatal error all of a sudden in 7.1. Or am I missing
something? :)

> Realistically most people consider E_NOTICE to be a higher error level th=
an
> E_DEPRECATED. If somebody is willing to suppress the notices this current=
ly
> generates, chances are very high that deprecations are suppressed as well=
.



> I don't see any release process issues with dropping this without
> deprecation. (But I'm still -1 on the change, because I don't see why we'=
d
> suddenly want to change this one relatively unimportant notice to be fata=
l
> while leaving everything else alone.)

Same, if anything doing fatal then it has to be done in 7.0. Also I
have to agree with Zeev on that, a warning or deprecation notice
should be enough.

I know it is not what many users want, to clean up such things, but we
decided not to have a 5.7 to prepare such removals, let act
accordingly.

cheers,
--=20
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org