"worked for years" is just why I said "having a totally new major
version"..meaning this is the time to fix the bad practises.
For filenames this is no problem at all, you can always rename files
yourself if you _really_ need to have different files around.
And if you think that this breaks something..well, it doesn't.
The old libphp4.so, and libphp5.so aren't changing with this, are they? :D
--Jani
Antony Dovgal kirjoitti:
On 31.05.2007 13:25, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 31.05.2007 13:04, Jani Taskinen wrote:
Antony Dovgal kirjoitti:
On 31.05.2007 03:29, Jani Taskinen wrote:
The whole idea of having that number there is pretty stupid..why
not just remove them altogether..?
Well, in some places it's just not possible, like libphp6.so etc.
You chose just the right example! Now, can you tell why it is
necessary?
And remember, everything is possible..there is no impossible here,
we're
having a totally new major version and everything.
Well, you might want to have both libphp5.so and libphp6.so
installed, but only one of them enabled.
Why should you be able to do this for two different major versions,
but not for arbitrary minor versions or even configurations?
Because this is how it works for years?
I do agree that having version number in file names is bad idea, but we
need to think it over very good, since I don't like changing a behaviour
which existed for ages, even if it looks stupid.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
