Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96400
Return-Path: <php@duncanc.co.uk>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 35483 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2016 21:09:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 17 Oct 2016 21:09:49 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@duncanc.co.uk; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@duncanc.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain duncanc.co.uk from 209.85.215.42 cause and error)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@duncanc.co.uk
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.215.42 mail-lf0-f42.google.com
Received: from [209.85.215.42] ([209.85.215.42:34271] helo=mail-lf0-f42.google.com)
by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
id CC/75-00450-C1E35085 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:09:49 -0400
Received: by mail-lf0-f42.google.com with SMTP id b81so304310257lfe.1
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=duncanc-co-uk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc;
bh=+/oqKhmBG76v9YwAwoqBTybITmLekp60ovvM6uyYfxA=;
b=v5A2q+t7+bqtRUvceEY1Pa6Mkp8OUgIJZF22haV7bYglMiLjdzye5NoTOm403MzJXt
vP6SJEKamzvEgvcJ2gbxhcm18c3roDe70gm7WLq4DBNl0iGaHQdSPKz6F8HvRhRdc54I
Jm63+Kc5JpzC9U62LTodY/RAIsw2ILNzWdmBhmuDxIoHQnz/CB892l6rIOasZ+2S0C0h
znL9ARoWoFJIs+S28CnnLQkY0RuFKzZcTHJlzGSssw7lSYe1UBEG5fLfouNNDJC29L11
CisE0WGW65pI5ODnCEzjCpzljBwWWKc/LE9k+Nvad0B7DrdB1wcvJnx7Nk3nowP06I0v
mkjQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=+/oqKhmBG76v9YwAwoqBTybITmLekp60ovvM6uyYfxA=;
b=kEgCYxAl+xuRaygRKVoAe0F7nxaddxNmpz6APQTH5FYqvITNF16iX1zcGIVH6geIdg
g1QqWPAo1WjV5sy1l22hvLfkWdEqA8Wk+7+RzF3XaAUWvWsExrBp0caS+vgdyLvdkMIJ
eHbdXTemYPpGrZgbX2mrPhv3IZzioPO0pfoEXoTLchA/Gprh29OcjXu5mckaxfkFy+7L
HjwE04mDjMLE/g/j2zMoBYw7dnqRQ915ZEzyFhsjby+4BRTA3Nvjs4NTwdgWDM3YVu1x
SpGFKcEkFhyxIjT2qMEWVR7DGpFNlHQnbhieM3qAY3hXgeeNcncdJq7NYeS1VbggegFU
ESLw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rmseuw1gBbyT9fP1eHIZoRw6ivHcXttNy6CJvBio4Z9C+CgiHRPJ+w2FZ/nRTi8RA==
X-Received: by 10.25.23.218 with SMTP id 87mr5306705lfx.86.1476738584733;
Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-f45.google.com (mail-lf0-f45.google.com. [209.85.215.45])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 18sm2106214ljj.49.2016.10.17.14.09.43
for <internals@lists.php.net>
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-f45.google.com with SMTP id b81so304309060lfe.1
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.25.139.195 with SMTP id n186mr17369937lfd.97.1476738583169;
Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.114.120.163 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [86.173.25.54]
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c-6cQQqQ9p-bMzZRkzPm4LvePAeNc_45X6OGy0h8DfaHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHE1EduJbdMFjyn2moV7ZEQi3xwwL0X2GWGHrpTLwe5A76f8BA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAHE1Edt2cEL8cUimUy0PkOXNi2X1v=2rqXg+4YAL1fFOSSLNeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAF+90c-6cQQqQ9p-bMzZRkzPm4LvePAeNc_45X6OGy0h8DfaHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:09:42 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAHE1Edv6S8Y=dRP-pVbtdcOmG2NLo_2zBeUiUTi7anQXLEqO2A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHE1Edv6S8Y=dRP-pVbtdcOmG2NLo_2zBeUiUTi7anQXLEqO2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ebaa6ad5ebf053f15fe31
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Counting of non-countable objects
From: php@duncanc.co.uk (Craig Duncan)
--001a113ebaa6ad5ebf053f15fe31
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 17 October 2016 at 21:57, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand the motivation for throwing a deprecation notice
> instead of a warning. In particular, what is the action that will be taken
> here in the next major version? I guess we would throw a warning and return
> false (instead of 0/1). But is the change of return value from 0/1 to false
> really sufficiently worthwhile to go with a deprecation first?
>
>
I don't feel strongly either way, as long as there's some clue that
something's not right.
Is there precedent for adding warnings in a minor? Would there be BC
concerns there?
I wouldn't want an RFC for a warning to fail when people would have voted
for a deprecation.
> In any case, if you want to go with deprecation, please specify what
> action this RFC implies for PHP 8.
>
>
Would it be acceptable for the RFC to state that this has no implications
for PHP 8, and is an indefinite deprecation?
--001a113ebaa6ad5ebf053f15fe31--