On Nov 20, 2012, at 10:34 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> The issue I have with this is just that we don't seem to be making >> much of an effort to stick to the promises we've made around BC when > > We make a lot of effort to do this. But it does not mean we should be > blindly and stupidly following the rigid rules even when it makes zero > sense in practice.
We made sense, and are not being blind and stupid. You may disagree but I don't understand why this discussion has to become so harsh. >> it doesn't suit us to. I agree: in practice, I can't imagine anyone >> caring a jot about these functions being removed, but we've said that >> when we're going to remove something, we'll deprecate for a minor >> release, then remove. Why don't we live up to it? > > Exactly because in practice it is not important. So on one side, you > have making PHP better without any practical downside. On the other > side, you have delaying making PHP better, but feeling good about > strictly following bureaucratic rules. I prefer the former. > > Rules are important, but it is also important to not lose the sight of > the goal - why these rules exist and when they make sense. And when they > don't. It's the inconsistency that bothers me. I think a rule like "Never remove a ~function without it first emitting E_DEPRECATED" can be followed 100% of the time, and don't see this as a bureaucratic rule but instead think this consistency would make PHP better. Regards, Philip -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
