Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:86811
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5588FADB.4080807@lerdorf.com>
References: <5586E5D1.4010901@lerdorf.com>
	<CAF+90c9Nxr70100SeBKgaTGGyD6MDQjWYSvjn6ZdkaJbrCZqLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55870947.4060304@lerdorf.com>
	<CAJW__o1fGEszJ7c3oP7wz0=TGWwmwKKYS823=7yz12Pm6Uej4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5587334C.2080401@lerdorf.com>
	<CAF+90c_gkv=u5+4kf1aHJ_KE+ULP20Y-0hgGU2Zu+vXvhjp-qg@mail.gmail.com>
	<55873676.6050706@gmail.com>
	<55876B29.90804@lerdorf.com>
	<CA+9eiLvupv0fV=mfFz0bLVXzE1mkTN4BN40SE96T6NaAZ+Vasg@mail.gmail.com>
	<55881A72.4090403@lerdorf.com>
	<CA+9eiLt=HD2EqVnX+o8Sm+vuUpqCOBBN=S_BDwWJDttuamc14w@mail.gmail.com>
	<5588477E.7050109@lerdorf.com>
	<CA+9eiLt6ZZx=D9cEX64KGjb-0aAuiDn6f5eQ94qJQxRoRPBkkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5588A02C.4040602@gmail.com>
	<5588AEFC.1030409@lerdorf.com>
	<5588D7BF.40209@gmail.com>
	<5588FADB.4080807@lerdorf.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 21:12:44 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU4JZ_ZovDJRSy8qHopou1=s8Gi0dXpgOYqbS0oA2XUDKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, Anatol Belski <anatol.php@belski.net>, 
	Kalle Sommer Nielsen <kalle@php.net>, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, 
	Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11474baceb28a105192ffb54
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] hasType() for internal function parameters?
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--001a11474baceb28a105192ffb54
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Jun 23, 2015 1:21 PM, "Rasmus Lerdorf" <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/22/2015 11:51 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >> Is it a BC break against real code though? Fixing tests isn't a
> >> big deal. What kind of real code would break by turning calls with
> >> the wrong number of args from an error to a warning?
> >
> > Well, if we move to checking in ZPP only, then some of the errors that
> > previously were fatals (like iterator_array("")) would now become
> > warnings. In fact, even type mismatch is a warning for ZPP, which may
> > be unexpected, as it was a fatal before, so we may want to change that.
> >
> > But in some situation, like argument number mismatch, we will have a
> > warning, where before it was a fatal error. Which isn't strictly BC
> > break but allows some code to pass which previously didn't and may
> > hide some bugs.
> >
> > So we may want to be careful there.
>
> I suppose so, but this seems like a relatively minor level of BC
> breakage especially for a major version bump.

I also think it is a rather minor problem. And to minimize the risk to get
such things accepted for 7.x I would rather go with 7.0.

We have time  to catch some of the troubles if any until final.

> -Rasmus
>
>

--001a11474baceb28a105192ffb54--