From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:43 AM > > Hi! > > On 13 Aug 2014, at 08:47, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> and I also think that this isn't an important enough issue to warrant a BC >> break (albeit this is the better kind of BC: probably doesn't effect too >> many people, and they will be clearly notified about the error at compile >> time) so I voted no based on this two thing. > > This isn’t really a BC break. Multiple default blocks didn’t actually > work anyway, we just silently ignored extra ones. > > On 13 Aug 2014, at 09:13, James <ja...@notjam.es> wrote: > >> I entirely believe this behavior is weird and should be removed. However, >> breaking backwards >> compatibility in a minor release because the incomplete spec says so is >> kind of odd. A BC break >> is a BC break, which doesn't belong in a minor revision. > > It isn’t a BC break that will affect anyone. It fixes a parser bug. >
If somebody unintentionally has multiple default blocks in his code and PHP is upgraded, he will get a parser error and his application will be broken. This definitely IS a BC break. But one could argue if this BC break will maybe help someone to find bugs in his code ;-)
