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?
If you refer to the INI parser, then it's actually an example of a change that broke compatibility, probably made after the bison people thought that nobody uses this feature.
> 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...
Says who? With PHP, the number 1 source to describe the functionality is the functionality itself. Even if it was documented to the contrary, at this point I would have to say that it was the documentors (which are, like the rest of us, mere mortals that make mistakes) who were wrong. And in this case, even if the PEAR authors were wrong, why on earth force them as well as lots of others pay when you can let go on working without any drawbacks whatsoever? This unexplained will to break compatibility is something that's very difficult to understand.
Zeev
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
