On 22.06.2019 at 21:31, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> While I understand where you are coming from on this, I do think that >> functionality that is better supported by dedicated extensions to do >> the job instead of providing some functions in the standard library >> that converts from a few specific encodings to another: > > It may be supported by other extensions (btw did anybody verify that it > actually is and gives the same results?), but this is not the reason per > se to remove old working functions. There's a lot of duplication in > programming languages - all (Turing-complete) languages ultimately do > the same thing, and most practical languages have way more syntax and > utility functions than strictly necessary to achieve desired outcome. > This is because redundancy in expressiveness improves productivity. > Here we have the reverse - we are forcing people who have working code > to go back and rewrite it to essentially achieve the same result we > already have - negative productivity. I don't see a point in doing this.
An alternative of rewriting such code would be to have the function defined somewhere else; this could be in userland code (and maybe somebody will make a composer package available), and this could also be in a custom extension (and perhaps somebody publishes a respective extension on PECL). Thanks, Christoph -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
