On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:36:11PM -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > On October 7, 2003 08:19 pm, Jon Parise wrote: > > By your definition, the code was "proper" (i.e. did not generate > > warnings) until the underlying rules were changed, and I'm sure we all > > agree that that's a silly definition of "proper code". > > Well, you are claiming that a code that relies on an illogical and > undocumented 'feature' is proper?
No, I'm not. I'm saying it used to run without producing any errors, and that status quo should be preserved in a bugfix release. Aside from being "illogical" and inconsistent, I don't see how changing this behavior qualifies as a bug fix. Fix it in a major revision, and we'll all be happen in 24 months or so when everyone upgrades. > PEAR is the official PHP library, which many people will undoubtedly use to > learn by example. IMHO that means that PEAR libraries especially the ones > part of the 'core' (automatically distributed) packages contain exemplary > code other people can safely learn from? Which just goes to show that the authors of the PEAR library (who are not ignorant of the PHP language and its constraints) were under the assumption that the code was correct at the time that is was written. -- Jon Parise ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) :: The PHP Project (http://www.php.net/) -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
