On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 10:29:29 -0800 Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com> wrote:
> Hi! > > > I propose to allow to work with DateTime objects that are marked as > > immutable optionally. This means that all methods add, sub, modify, > > I think it's a bad idea, which would instantly break all the code that > assumes different semantics. Yes, I noticed the word optional, however, > the code accepting DateTime assumes some semantics, and had no means to > reject object with different semantics, and combining two semantics in > one class is a bad idea. > > On the other hand, you can create DateTimeValue object, which can do > what you want. I'd imagine it'd be quite easy to do in user space too. > If enough people feel they need it then it can be brought into the > extension too. Hey Stas, i actually implemented this in userland, but its rather ugly: http://whitewashing.de/blog/124 I'd like to see it in the extension, the patch was just the only thing i could do with my limited C skills ;-) It is better to start the discussion with something visible rather than just speaking about hypothetical changes :-) > > > I also talked to Derick about this and he agrees that immutable DateTime > > objects would be desirable. I have talked to many other people who agreed > > that the current behavior is weird. > > I've talked to many people who agree it isn't ;) > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
