FTR, I've created a second PR, without the changes to the array functions:
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/2100
This way we can go either way.
- Davey
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Christoph M. Becker
wrote:
> On 26.08.2016 at 16:48, Levi Morrison wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4
On 26.08.2016 at 16:48, Levi Morrison wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Christoph M. Becker
> wrote:
>
>> Finally, I wonder why array_diff(), for instance, even has an explicit
>> check for ZEND_NUM_ARGS() and for Z_TYPE() != IS_ARRAY instead of
>> properly invoking zend_parse_parameters
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> On 25.08.2016 at 18:37, Davey Shafik wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Christoph M. Becker
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed, the RFC explicitly claims:
>>>
>>> | Behavior of internal functions is not going to be changed.
>>
>> This i
On 25.08.2016 at 18:37, Davey Shafik wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Christoph M. Becker
> wrote:
>
>> Indeed, the RFC explicitly claims:
>>
>> | Behavior of internal functions is not going to be changed.
>
> This is correct for functions that had the correct behavior before
> (everyt
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Christoph M. Becker
wrote:
> On 24.08.2016 at 18:45, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> > On Aug 24, 2016 9:55 AM, "Davey Shafik" wrote:
> >>
> >> Given this thread: http://externals.io/thread/233
> >>
> >> I'm not happy with the state of this going into RC1 next week, and
On 24.08.2016 at 18:45, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2016 9:55 AM, "Davey Shafik" wrote:
>>
>> Given this thread: http://externals.io/thread/233
>>
>> I'm not happy with the state of this going into RC1 next week, and without
>> changes (such as the patch I provided), I would like to revert t
Nikita,
It is _always_ better to have more specific exceptions when it makes sense.
In this case, we need to do it to maintain BC.
One use-case that wasn't covered in the RFC, is the use of argument
unpacking with too few elements in the array/traversable — whereby you
would want to guard specifi
On Aug 24, 2016 9:55 AM, "Davey Shafik" wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Given this thread: http://externals.io/thread/233
>
> I'm not happy with the state of this going into RC1 next week, and without
> changes (such as the patch I provided), I would like to revert this change
> and leave it for 7.2.
>
> M
Hi all,
Given this thread: http://externals.io/thread/233
I'm not happy with the state of this going into RC1 next week, and without
changes (such as the patch I provided), I would like to revert this change
and leave it for 7.2.
My patch will _retain_ BC for internal functions with non strict_t
