On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Sebastian Kugler wrote: > Derick, > > > you will break code that is out there. > > do you have an idea how much code is "out there" that has classes > named "Date"?
No, I have no numbers, but there are definitely people who used that name out there (besides PEAR). PHP 5.1 does come with other changes in behavior though, which are all meant in the upgrade notes. Included here is the issue with the date class. (I know this only works in an ideal world:) Users should always evaluate if they can upgrade to the latest PHP version (x. or .y.) to see if there is any change in behavior, therefore it shouldn't be that much of a problem for people writing good applications. ISPs should know better than to upgrade immediately. > Above all, you can definitely not introduce new classes in RC6! It was oversighted, it should indeed have been done before rc1 (or rc2). > And this date class doesn't even seem to provide any functionality, so > that there would be an incentive (or even possibility) to migrate > projects using PEAR::Date to the new Date class. Why did this class > have to be crippled (i. e. deactivating its methods) BUT incorporated > in 5.1 and why not before RC6? It has class constants, so there is (some) functionality. Previously the constants were "DATE_ISO8601" and now they are date::ISO8601, this is something that I use in my code currently - this code is about to be released to the public. And if it was for me, this class *would* have had functionality and it has been ifdef'ed out in CVS for about 5 months now because it could stall the release. Derick -- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
