Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99437 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 70131 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2017 17:53:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Jun 2017 17:53:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rowan.collins@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rowan.collins@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.128.182 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rowan.collins@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.128.182 mail-wr0-f182.google.com Received: from [209.85.128.182] ([209.85.128.182:35268] helo=mail-wr0-f182.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F5/E6-27119-1AD38395 for ; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 13:53:37 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f182.google.com with SMTP id q97so9306866wrb.2 for ; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 10:53:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:subject:cc:from:message-id; bh=Jv8CnvydqHz+hfyvp9wPzZhh48oUxh85r5fkJ/SHaLE=; b=HvNrhp10QvL0Ksci2kBDntrgVW1KRpgJytyE9++a3zHpFhPdWkeTUTQ9dhDYwhWN+P 9WoHnhxl6vymuMGLEopFNn/+KM8Bf0KBVW8pXI9kObwHZW+/vY2T3TeNux3Y9tOA7dL4 DA/Akh4WSMVnFzJbOykMVVNKbtPM3jgj7gq19Aas3qChBrxBWjBQck6qp1BrIcglzfAM We6BPByh3dkGt+1naUtb2So30QPvL5sX32dmPtejV0/FVUdVfqqGln63QI7n2mojYaKX FcbWWhzqSclSLd6gNZ9auBwvz4lvIX+hYIUa7DQKhWgdeCNviL5ogw19FOs+fV4UdH3n WiPQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:user-agent:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:cc:from:message-id; bh=Jv8CnvydqHz+hfyvp9wPzZhh48oUxh85r5fkJ/SHaLE=; b=DlZplIE9zRgQOwzTTXQ73C9yCO5hfOTvOolAsO72i/4A4ne/IL2uW+8Suso2fBSkbS Z7XXoew+T98xhn9jvndblSe/Z0N48/wTgJ9nzkeW2CtfB782RkIw3tBPw09c6mU5sQTo pfVYxlJPdrnjtix03fni1R9xosETQLPlp1mcvPbjXOGLi/XkMGqPk2SxVKo8tx0iBm5w y5HGe/WtvTBa0M0ntGexmnVvLG4mVyOU6cx2qTb5jNzY74wZAngE5G6PHa0YOvpDosTg 2eYdEm+kF8QuP8wLf78ym0CODzNk4HMCp05vEawfMd12fst/yseg4g1rqi8KpE+YdkHT VdUA== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDHS6A9+ZQX+G4t+01lBxCndnHhywxggHaq1AThrE3UIZyon2Xc Zy9x9W5652q4zf8fdsw= X-Received: by 10.223.170.137 with SMTP id h9mr25184057wrc.36.1496858014742; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 10:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.61.77.213] (188.29.165.101.threembb.co.uk. [188.29.165.101]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x133sm3109922wme.0.2017.06.07.10.53.33 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Jun 2017 10:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 18:53:30 +0100 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <7028fcfd-d47f-c983-510d-eefe4a36cd4a@tekwire.net> <50D8C5E2-DCD3-455C-9FF6-FEDD5723FBE6@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable CC: PHP internals Message-ID: <02333C7C-70A8-48D7-844D-F84D2B68BFCA@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Arrays starting with a negative index From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins) On 7 June 2017 17:36:01 BST, "Pedro Magalh=C3=A3es" wro= te: >On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Rowan Collins >wrote: > >> On 7 June 2017 15:23:13 BST, "Pedro Magalh=C3=A3es" >wrote: >> >On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Rowan Collins > >> >wrote: >> > >> >> you can't simply pass something that *incidentally* changes a >> >> pre-established rule >> > >> > >> >Hi Rowan, >> > >> >Would you consider that that is not the case for your own RFC? >> >https://wiki=2Ephp=2Enet/rfc/deprecate-bareword-strings >> >> >> I'm sorry, I don't follow=2E What rule is broken, incidentally or >> explicitly, by that RFC? >> > >The page that was already mentioned on this thread: >https://wiki=2Ephp=2Enet/rfc/releaseprocess#releases_cycle explicitly >states >the following: > >x=2Ey=2Ez to x=2Ey+1=2Ez >> Backward compatibility must be kept > > >However, a number of already implemented RFCs for 7=2E2 do not follow >that >rule strictly: =2E=2E=2E >I don't mean at all that these should not have been accepted=2E >Especially >the ones that initiate a deprecation phase=2E=20 Deprecating something is basically the opposite of breaking backwards comp= atibility in a minor release=2E The entire point of deprecation messages is= to indicate ahead of time that something will be broken later, but not bre= ak it yet=2E Unless you're being purposefully pedantic to try and prove tha= t black is white, adding any log message is barely even a functional change= , let alone a breaking one=2E That said, there *are* sometimes RFCs that break the rule=2E Usually, they= get feedback regarding the break, just as this one is=2E Often, they attem= pt to justify an exception to the rule, as I and others have suggested this= one could=2E I don't always agree with the way those exceptions are applie= d (too_few_args was one I opposed, for instance)=2E I hope you can see that saying "well, we allow people to fix spelling mist= akes in error messages, so we might as well allow changes that completely c= hange the behaviour of a core function" is pretty ridiculous=2E We have a r= ule, there are grey areas, and we try to navigate them; in this case, peopl= e are saying the RFC has fallen the wrong side of that grey area=2E If you = disagree, feel free to comment on this specific case=2E Regards, --=20 Rowan Collins [IMSoP]