Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85468 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 74989 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2015 16:00:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Mar 2015 16:00:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:18283] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 33/F1-63185-39BD2155 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:00:20 -0500 Received: from moorea (unknown [82.240.16.115]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD41B4B024A; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:58:40 +0100 (CET) Reply-To: To: "'Rowan Collins'" , "'internals'" References: <006301d06637$ebbb4ee0$c331eca0$@php.net> <007901d0664f$dee34430$9ca9cc90$@php.net> <55119F4E.6010503@gmail.com> <5512AB8B.4020409@gmail.com> <5512B88C.9070109@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5512B88C.9070109@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 17:00:06 +0100 Message-ID: <00eb01d06714$c3814460$4a83cd20$@php.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQINGwJxyuYhIX37R6FSHjGdA0ViXQKNUyGJAoOUU5sB+SbbRQFj/qrGAerNvXsBxwwqYwNCYiSJAiPH3+ycJ7wkMA== Content-Language: fr X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150325-0, 25/03/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Deprecate or remove mbstring function overloads in PHP 7 From: francois@php.net (=?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=) > De : Rowan Collins [mailto:rowan.collins@gmail.com] > > I think there should be a quick RFC collecting this reasoning, and a > formal invitation for contrary opinions, to avoid accusations that it > was slipped in the back door. If there really is no opposition, the = RFC > will record that the vote was unanimous, and be a point of reference = to > anyone looking for more explanation than the manual provides. Quick or not, even deprecations requires an RFC and a formal vote, = unless a special rule is written somewhere. And the RFC must clearly = describe and plan the next step, because deprecation is temporary. I asked for an additional delay for 7.0 feature freeze and it was = clearly rejected. So, IMO, even deprecation cannot go to 7.0. The best = we can do is to deprecate in 7.1 and remove in 8.0, and I'll oppose any = attempt to introduce exceptions in 7.0 (just because it would mean that = the rules are not the same for everyone). For those claiming that it is 'merely a deprecation', that it won't = 'break anything', and that ' people will have plenty of time to = gracefully migrate their codebases', please remember that the coercive = STH RFC was rejected mainly because some deprecations were considered as = unacceptable BC breaks. So, there's no more permissive rules for = deprecations. Regards Fran=C3=A7ois