On 12/16/2008 14:23, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 3:20 PM, troels knak-nielsen<troel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Scott MacVicar<sc...@macvicar.net> wrote:
For now I'll be leaving it as is and adding a JSON_STRICT_ENCODE
parameter to the options flag. So you can use
json_encode($var, JSON_STRICT_ENCODE);
I'm really not a fan of named constants to change the semantics of a
function like that. Not to mention that it's a pita to type out, so
nobody would bother. It also doesn't address the crux of the matter -
That the name json_encode is slightly misleading, in that it may or
may not emit json.
Would it be a problem to introduce a second function (js_encode?)
instead? It could work as json_encode does today, and json_encode
could then be changed to raise a warning on illegal input. I realise
that this means breaking existing scripts, but it's a trivial change,
and if it's announced in advance, people should have time to make that
sed -r '/json_encode/js_encode/g' to their code base.
sounds like a proper way to me
Me too, but I rather name the function js_escape instead of js_encode.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
