On 23/10/06, Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
On 10/23/06, Richard Quadling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23/10/06, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> >
> > > > > Yes, I see no point in pushing this responsibility into the userland,
> > > > > especially since its a BC break appearently.
> > > >
> > > > There is no BC break:
> > >
> > > I meant, there would be a BC break if this feature gets dropped, which is
the
> > > point of the message, right?
> >
> > Yeah, but there is no point in calling mktime() without arguments as you
> > can use time() doing the same. It's just a friendly hint that you're
> > wasting CPU cycles. It's an E_STRICT message for ****s sake.
> >
>
> In a simple test, 100000 calls to time() took 0.055 seconds and
> mktime() took 3.2 seconds.
>
> Nearly 60 times faster to use time().
>
> Didn't realise that.
If you read the other replies to your initial question (which was
wrong :), you will realize another thing, this is easily fixable with
minimum effort and impact:
http://pecl.php.net/~pierre/remove_mktime_strict.txt
No visible speed difference
.
--Pierre
Yes. I was wrong. Sorry. And a perfect fix. Now mktime() is an alias
for time(), except when additional parameters are supplied.
--
-----
Richard Quadling
Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498&r=213474731
"Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!"
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
