LS>>Please Stas .. I was talking about a long term vision. Why do you have to LS>>insist drawing up horror scenarios that are unrelated to my comments? While LS>>this may be an effective strategy in politics I find it unnecessary inside a LS>>technical discussion on open source software.
What is so political about being aware of more than your single calendar app? If you talk about portability, you need to thing about things that happen in real world, and that means "works for me" is not good anymore - you should think if it works for the next guy too. LS>>Again I was not talking about PHP 5.1 .. I was talking about a long LS>>term vision. So that we can atleast agree on that and then come up LS>>with a migration plan (if needed) from there. Long term vision of what? If date() should be broken? I don't see any term it should be broken in, neither long nor short. If additonal capabilities should be supported - of course they should be, especially if it's already implemented. How to do both these things technically - now if we agree that should be done, it doesn't need very longs terms to do it, as I think - but so far I didn't see any agreement on this. LS>>Thanks for not listening Stas. I listened, and found you arguments not convincing. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ +972-3-6139665 ext.115 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
