On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:57:40PM +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > not sure what do you mean here, multiple default cases can be reached the > same way as any other duplicated case branch(as shown in my snippet in the > mail you replied to). > even if those were always "silently ignored" as you falsely claim, it would > still be a BC break, as code working before this change would stop working > with a fatal error.
It is a bug. No one should be using this, get rid of it. However: not until the next major version. There are prob a few bits of code that have this in there -- accidentally. People expect to perform minor upgrades without breakage - so just leave it there. When there is a major upgrade it is expected that a few things might not work - so do it when people a rebuilding systems and expect such things. -- Alain Williams Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer. +44 (0) 787 668 0256 http://www.phcomp.co.uk/ Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php #include <std_disclaimer.h> -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
