On 20.10.2016 at 14:15, Stephen Reay wrote:

> As with Niklas, I have no vote, so my *only* option to prevent what I 
> consider to be a bad decision, is to post to this thread and hope that enough 
> of those who *do* have voting rights, reject the proposal.
> 
> I understand what you’re proposing. But honestly I don’t even agree with the 
> premise that there is a *problem* that needs to be fixed.
> 
> Did you know that if you manually set the Content-Length header to less than 
> the actual body length, many browsers (Safari, Chrome, and FF definitely) 
> will stop reading/processing the response at the length you specify?
> So should we also prevent setting Content-Length via header() ?
> 
> Honestly I don’t understand how this is still a discussion. The developer 
> failed to set the $replace argument to false. At most I would expect this to 
> result in a documentation note warning about the use of header(‘Set-Cookie…’).
> 
> I appreciate you trying to make improvements, and I’d *definitely* be in 
> favour of the function naming cleanup you mentioned earlier, but all of this 
> “protected” headers and extra function calls, because someone forgot to type 
> “, false” seems ridiculous to me honestly.

Full ACK.

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to