On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Jon Parise wrote:
> 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,
You mean just like our bison parser?
> 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.
Then they were wrong...
Derick
--
"Interpreting what the GPL actually means is a job best left to those
that read the future by examining animal entrails."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl/
International PHP Magazine http://php-mag.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
