The issue is now solved, thank you.
EOD
On 11/14/2006 12:38 AM, Antony Dovgal wrote:
Hello all.
I'd like to continue recent IRC discussion here, to draw more attention to this
issue.
At the moment functions fgets() and fgetss() are broken in HEAD, as they return
characters instead of , as
At 06:48 16/11/2006, Sara Golemon wrote:
Zeev-
My IQ is higher than 12, and I don't see how defensive coding could
have defended against this BC break. This code is missing error
checking, but that could be quite reasonable (e.g. if you check
ahead of time that the file is big enough to matc
Zeev-
My IQ is higher than 12, and I don't see how defensive coding could have
defended against this BC break. This code is missing error checking,
but that could be quite reasonable (e.g. if you check ahead of time that
the file is big enough to match the format you're expecting - so it's
n
Sorry, I meant to say "Noone with an IQ higher than twelve is relying on
this."
PHP Developer 1: Let's change functionality for some widely-used
function and break BC, because we can and it is so much fun!
PHP Developer 2: You know, breaking BC is not nice, people really rely
on it and try to
At 13:04 15/11/2006, Sara Golemon wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, November 14, 2006 2:59 pm, Sara Golemon wrote:
keeping. I'll lay money that NOONE is relying on this, and I
challenge
any of you to prove me wrong on that count.
E.
You may want to re-think that bet...
Surely somebo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, November 14, 2006 2:59 pm, Sara Golemon wrote:
keeping. I'll lay money that NOONE is relying on this, and I
challenge
any of you to prove me wrong on that count.
E.
You may want to re-think that bet...
Surely somebody out there has:
Sorry, I meant to s
On Tue, November 14, 2006 2:59 pm, Sara Golemon wrote:
> keeping. I'll lay money that NOONE is relying on this, and I
> challenge
> any of you to prove me wrong on that count.
E.
You may want to re-think that bet...
Surely somebody out there has:
even if you and I both know how horrible t
It better be in Canadian dollars ;)
(Yeah I got inet access again)
Sara, more seriously, when Zeev puts in a plea and Edin's saying the same
thing, it's likely you're misjudging the situation. It's a rare event :)
On 14-Nov-06, at 3:59 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
I'll lay money that NOONE is re
On 14-Nov-06, at 3:59 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
I'll lay money that NOONE is relying on this, and I challenge any
of you to prove me wrong on that count.
Just how much money are we talking about here? ;-)
http://www.google.com/codesearch?as_q=fgets%5C%28%5C%24%5BA-Za-z0-9_%
5D%2B%2C+2%5C%29%3
As I told tony in IRC, I don't care if the behavior gets changed back to
5.2 style, although I don't think this is a BC we need to worry about
keeping. I'll lay money that NOONE is relying on this, and I challenge
any of you to prove me wrong on that count.
How much money? ;) Anyway, if nobod
I'd lay money on someone somewhere having something critical relying
on the traditional behavior. IIRC, this came up before and we decided
to preserve the way it worked.
I don't see any need to change this in 6 or any later version.
As crappy as that may be, BC is BC. :-/
--Wez.
On 11/14/06, S
I can't prove you wrong, but to me it sounds extremely reasonable
that there'd be a lot of lines of code that rely on that behavior
exactly. You believe nobody is using fgets() to read, say, 3
bytes? Unless I'm missing something, whenever someone uses this
function to read an exact number of
Richard,
Really, this has been discussed so many times.
Backwards compatibility breakage accumulates. It's not a
binary. "If we break something we can break everything since it's
broken anyway" is not very convincing. The more you break the worse
things are, the more work you have to do in
Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 11/14/2006 08:26 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Sounds like something which indeed isn't worth breaking. Was this
intentional?
Sara says it was intentional, that's why I decided to write to the list.
I don't think such intentional breaks should take place in any PHP version.
Hello,
On 11/14/06, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/14/2006 08:56 PM, Pierre wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 11/14/06, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The comparison Tony made was between <=5.X and PHP 6, I do not believe
>> > anyone is suggesting to modify the 5.2.x beh
On 11/14/2006 08:56 PM, Pierre wrote:
Hello,
On 11/14/06, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The comparison Tony made was between <=5.X and PHP 6, I do not believe
> anyone is suggesting to modify the 5.2.x behavior.
Yes, I noticed later it's PHP 6, but it does not change a thing
Hello,
On 11/14/06, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The comparison Tony made was between <=5.X and PHP 6, I do not believe
> anyone is suggesting to modify the 5.2.x behavior.
Yes, I noticed later it's PHP 6, but it does not change a thing - it's
still totally unnecessary BC bre
The comparison Tony made was between <=5.X and PHP 6, I do not believe
anyone is suggesting to modify the 5.2.x behavior.
Yes, I noticed later it's PHP 6, but it does not change a thing - it's
still totally unnecessary BC break for the sake of meaningless purism.
It adds nothing to the languag
On 14/11/06, Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 14-Nov-06, at 3:34 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> It seems utterly ridiculous to return maxlen-1.
>> Whilst this is sure as hell a BC, it should work "properly". If I ask
>> for 10, I want 10. I wouldn't have asked for 10 otherwise.
On 14-Nov-06, at 3:34 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
It seems utterly ridiculous to return maxlen-1.
Whilst this is sure as hell a BC, it should work "properly". If I ask
for 10, I want 10. I wouldn't have asked for 10 otherwise. Having to
know the "magic" to get things to work is plainly bad ma
Richard Quadling wrote:
And so why are we losing register_globals? For a LOT of code they work
and removing rg is sure as hell a BC for a lot of code. And we move
This was done for *good* reason. You don't gain a lot of security (or
even code clearity/brevity) by changing fgets. That's the dif
On 14/11/06, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"It works this way since PHP3" means "it works right" even if there was a bug
in PHP3.
That's because thousands of people could rely on this behaviour (which is, I
repeat,
very well documented and pretty much expected).
And so why are we l
Antony Dovgal wrote:
> On 11/14/2006 08:26 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>> Sounds like something which indeed isn't worth breaking. Was this
>> intentional?
>
> Sara says it was intentional, that's why I decided to write to the list.
> I don't think such intentional breaks should take place in any PHP
On 11/14/2006 11:24 AM, Richard Quadling wrote:
As we are often told on this list, PHP is not C.
It seems utterly ridiculous to return maxlen-1.
It also might seem ridiculous to have strlen() and str_replace(), but there are
good reasons to have strlen() instead of str_len().
Whilst this is
-Original Message-
From: Antony Dovgal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 1:39 PM
To: php-dev
Subject: [PHP-DEV] fgets()/fgetss() BC break in HEAD
Hello all.
I'd like to continue recent IRC discussion here, to draw more
attention to this issue.
At the moment f
Richard Quadling wrote:
Just because it has always done it doesn't mean it always will. That's
what BC's are about.
BC, as far as I know, is "backwards compatibility". It is *exactly*
about "it has always done so and it always will". And unless there's a
*very* good reason not to do it, so it
Just because it has always done it doesn't mean it always will. That's
what BC's are about.
If this was to be a BC, having it mid version is not a good idea.
Maybe for V6 where a whole LOAD of things are going to change, making
it another part of the clean up process would be a better option.
On
It always returned length-1, manual says length-1, so suddenly in
version 5.2.1 it starts returning length instead. And now imagine
Didn't notice - it is about HEAD not 5.2. It's less critical then but
still as bad. People moving to PHP 6 would have enough things to worry
without changing f
It seems utterly ridiculous to return maxlen-1.
Whilst this is sure as hell a BC, it should work "properly". If I ask
for 10, I want 10. I wouldn't have asked for 10 otherwise. Having to
know the "magic" to get things to work is plainly bad magic.
It always returned length-1, manual says length
As we are often told on this list, PHP is not C.
It seems utterly ridiculous to return maxlen-1.
Whilst this is sure as hell a BC, it should work "properly". If I ask
for 10, I want 10. I wouldn't have asked for 10 otherwise. Having to
know the "magic" to get things to work is plainly bad magic.
Sounds like something which indeed isn't worth breaking. Was this
intentional?
> -Original Message-
> From: Antony Dovgal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 1:39 PM
> To: php-dev
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] fgets()/fgetss() BC break in HEAD
>
Hello all.
I'd like to continue recent IRC discussion here, to draw more attention to this
issue.
At the moment functions fgets() and fgetss() are broken in HEAD, as they return
characters instead of , as they do in 5.2 (and I'm pretty sure this is the way
they used to work since their very
32 matches
Mail list logo
