Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93834 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 68763 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2016 10:07:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Jun 2016 10:07:32 -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 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:52276] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E0/41-60933-36B45575 for ; Mon, 06 Jun 2016 06:07:31 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8317510C01C; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:07:28 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:07:28 +0100 (BST) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Rowan Collins cc: internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Replace "Missing argument" warning with "Too few arguments" exception From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Mon, 6 Jun 2016, Rowan Collins wrote: > On 06/06/2016 08:22, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > > > > This mini RFC has been moved to "Voting" state. Voting began on Jun > > 6 and will close on June 16. > > > > You can find the full RFC at: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/too_few_args > > > > I encourage everyone to read the RFC and cast your vote towards > > whichever option you feel is the best for the language and the > > community. > > > I don't have a vote, but if I did I would vote against making this > change in a minor release. > > The release process RFC [1] says that for a release such as 7.1 > "Backward compatibility must be kept". This RFC gives no justification > for being an exception to this rule, simply acknowledging that it is a > deliberate break in compatibility. > > It's a shame it didn't make it for 7.0, but in my opinion, this should now > wait for 8.0. I agree with that statement, and hence voted "No". cheers, Derick