Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96400 Return-Path: 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 ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:09:49 -0400 Received: by mail-lf0-f42.google.com with SMTP id b81so304310257lfe.1 for ; 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 (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 ; 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: References: Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:09:42 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Nikita Popov Cc: Internals 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 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--