Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96090
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4NoAEg+f_26d7Gt2RPTwUDRT65qRYMmhK0vBPiheFYBzGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOWwgpn1_ZHxQq9FpiwCYoqT3kVHH0k3LgO7E+eX5N2ybjDtrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c9XW7G-7CtKCWt+JOm5vE1XTnC92AkHvmBe9fohTOWeKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOWwgpm6YL+kiwT=n8QdeKHVYg=KG7aCp=2Cv5qn0nRVNwR0bA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAObuZduNr1oKRx0MKdGG=9XLADZF_tP4YORTk486kWa6CC_=Hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOWwgpmjaYnsOcJ2_vACCpR95NNQk8C_PwyWtdwOA-s5FbfpSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAObuZdvjesE9=C8sFk_8wdbpUzu7g2CTUY6Js_mSitO6SbB2=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOWwgp=Cha7y0goSOkQPqCOEr1rwmG0+-6JGaiDZmqkhMfyrpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFMT4NoAEg+f_26d7Gt2RPTwUDRT65qRYMmhK0vBPiheFYBzGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 07:51:29 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU5YAS45uaVvWBRj7F2P+NNXsFzi_q2C9TZUex8=uZOE4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas@gmail.com>, 
	Ryan Pallas <derokorian@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c092852fcb4c3053d0e0f69
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Fix ReflectionType::__toString() BC break
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--94eb2c092852fcb4c3053d0e0f69
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sep 22, 2016 1:07 AM, "Levi Morrison" <levim@php.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Nicolas Grekas
> <nicolas.grekas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> To handle this in code written around current __toString seems pretty
> > simple
> >
> > Yes it is, but that's not what we're talking about:
> > BC is about having perfectly fine code working in e.g. 7.0 be still
working
> > fine on 7.1 *without any change*.
> >
> > Right now, we have red test suites on php7.1rc2.
> > This is the symptom of a BC break, by definition.
> > And the issue is not the existing code we have, but the new one that is
> > changing the behavior of the engine.
>
> This was understood when the decision was made. You seem to not be
> understanding the bigger issue and instead focusing on the BC break
> for a *single minor release,

Which does not allow BC breaks but for extreme cases. I do not consider
this case as extreme, at all.

I share Nicolas concerns here. This is the kind of changes making the
migration path harder than it should without a strong reason behind it.

I agree with Nikita but it is something that can be solved using the
depreciation flag and then handle in the next major.

> and a dot zero at that*. If we keep the
> BC compat this method is redundant and useless forever. If we fix it
> we break your code for *one single minor release, and a dot zero at
> that*. Which is the bigger disruption?

Obviously the sooner. And what is the next BC breaks for 7.2/3/4?

This is exactly why we introduce the no BC break rule.

In this case it is even more clear as one can use getName if desired to
support 7.1+ only, which I suppose is most likely not the case for a large
majority of users.

--94eb2c092852fcb4c3053d0e0f69--