On 29/11/12 07:33, Kris Craig wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com>wrote:
Patrick,
Sorry, but removing the E_DEPRECATED notice when moved to PECL is not
part of the proposed RFC and should certainly not happen.
The proposal doesn't actually propose anything about a move to PECL. It's
listed in the "possible future actions" section exactly once. But the RFC
doesn't take a stand on it in either direction. So I'm not sure that you
can make that argument.
Adding it in one location and not the other does
not make sense.
Absolutely! There is no reason to remove that kind of notice in the
future.
That's your opinion. Please realize it as such and that other viewpoints
also exist.
For example, I have the viewpoint that deprecation applies to the LANGUAGE.
The inclusion of the extension in the language is what's being deprecated.
Even after it's pulled, someone else can maintain it. We can say that you
should avoid it, but there's nothing stoping someone else from continuing
maintenance of it as a fork. And adding in the other missing functionality
(possibly breaking BC, possibly not, whatever).
Therefore, in my viewpoint, the deprecation notices only apply to the
inclusion of the extension in the core language distribution. Not to the
extension itself.
I'm not saying that either one of us is right or wrong, just that there are
other opinions. To keep this discussion productive, please refrain from
using absolutes like that...
Thanks
Anthony
I think we're over-complicating this a bit. The whole point of
E_DEPRECATED is to get people to stop using an obsolete feature before it's
removed (or moved to PECL or whatever; neither of which is in the scope of
this RFC anyway). Documentation and whatnot can only accomplish so much.
We also know that E_DEPRECATED works when other approaches do not. I would
point you all to the famous example of Drupal 7, which would break
completely due to a flurry of E_DEPRECATED warnings (if display_errors was
set to on) being triggered as of 5.3 due to their continued use of
magic_quotes_gpc and magic_quotes_runtime. When Drupal 8 was released some
time later, the code was fixed so that it no longer used those out-dated
functions.
That's why I voted yes.
--Kris
Kris,
There was no "ext/magic_quotes" that was retired to PECL. You're
comparing apples with oranges.
David
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
