On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Peter Cowburn wrote: > On 28 September 2010 08:19, Michael Wallner <m...@php.net> wrote: > > On 09/28/2010 07:05 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote: > >> > >> 2010/9/27 Johannes Schlüter<johan...@schlueters.de>: > >>> > >>> I think Mike's point was that these functions, according to the comment, > >>> only exist for BC reasons. So they should either keep BC or be dropped. > > > >> The only usage php_idate() exists for is the idate() function, i > >> greped pecl and tried to use OpenGrok, but it was only used within the > >> date extension, so i think the break is minor to nothing. > > > > So? Drop it or leave it alone :) idate() seems as useful as a nipple on my > > back... > > I use idate(), to this day, in preference of (int) date(). Whilst it's > hardly a huge issue, dare I say many folks don't even know if its > existence, if it is dropped, I may cross whomever does it off of my > Christmas card list.
The idate() function isn't going to be dropped; we're just making sure it doesn't break BC here. And FWIF, I agree with Michael here: No need to break (internal) BC over such an unimportant thing. Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
