Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96428 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 14484 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2016 11:52:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Oct 2016 11:52:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cmbecker69@gmx.de; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cmbecker69@gmx.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.15.19 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cmbecker69@gmx.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.227.15.19 mout.gmx.net Received: from [212.227.15.19] ([212.227.15.19:60359] helo=mout.gmx.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A8/4C-40890-80D06085 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 07:52:42 -0400 Received: from [192.168.2.103] ([79.243.119.150]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M5Lmp-1cshRM3Q2J-00zWyp; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:52:36 +0200 To: Craig Duncan , Nikita Popov References: Cc: Internals Message-ID: <75fb61fe-f667-f7eb-02e3-ff103c0f83dd@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:53:20 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:f55tQMOChaH1fBJDoMQ1RuRwEDnZYHbhrYrHafpZdrJ7kWTjKEj bxGTIm9qoJZuUckVfTrzAS6HTrv5gs9hoVn+xbaJHCJ7KM7tSZas0lCBYQ2Dt4PuxLxXPHt 4hgkiH8YI09aiAiJ8pZDf4lxw/ghlgoAMGdu/g187XG+mHVniQbZ+M84JFP9I/1XD4VSKTB LqBrEY+cw46sQ8UF1gJgw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:teZkQ1jg3A8=:mmP7WtW+SkGkJthG5HRJnz kdNZ8t98hajXFt8B51UOjCozr5BCTNkyeG+mPOL0d6QgKvq3+SshCV+JRFsXzFEw+/CROo9gG jk9vSFloKwWWRfQLsMIgZx/RN4O2raAvfzNqIMsa3Mt6mkFLCoj0k/hYbGH1upX/YFeBgQQlj 0qxdeoYZ6tqNQgjveE7ApZDV+H2am3zxFOSgoVo8lQ46TWjKObBm6qJpPzCIwRf3uUaXia2Ws DYQIb5kIfkICZF/y0b+R9f7+tEw4ztVJ0n1aWEpZPq8DyNy7Ll4HanmSlpDcJ3G5R6v0bmPbd 0dIHxj0bdD2/cPcFfxsDHISwEyn+yqOtEiH8VDsgxIUkrE6u49F8DPmMeSfQnZyI7r+FrV+1t N+Lzj6d4oM8QYhuvo4UkGmrLEDMaBbNcLCaUtiJpj8ErLz9rDtGX7Yw9ZRCM7V41SSrqNpI2I eQ8fqnTFY1TiwbQSxdTn8gxtiroYAcR6b6p27QQ0E49xJMeqEman2POENig7k/SAwNrdpM/hu FJTSlGn2mgRPU9VKEgzCzBk2rQrNOslH4j7Ur5EAaP8r1CeNA1Lp8YIM14glRCrqdx2CjxVRd RYi/uKbgZLveJhPDJo9Q8juHOzFVbuXjcVwYaAimYLXnnKyqtpcNyrgwvaZAXVLSFXoNibRqA LAbamQhNRM1nJoikuNs2G+62zdNQpCIYRyyHNulBPQqmrJYtvt9f41CwpwhvdK9VoLyxzPrIi nJz1sk3D++E3C5367yZi735caZHIOkdQWA6cskPPCJiMupsFNh9dZMHLmquDvxRYoMGYOJ1wK CzB2hnl Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Counting of non-countable objects From: cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker") On 17.10.2016 at 23:09, Craig Duncan wrote: > 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? is supposed to introduce a new E_WARNING in PHP 7.2. And yes, there is a (small) BC break, but even E_DEPRECATED might be regarded as such. > I wouldn't want an RFC for a warning to fail when people would have voted > for a deprecation. You might consider offering this as voting option. >> 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? In my opinion, an indefinite deprecation doesn't make much sense. -- Christoph M. Becker