Everything
php
Learn Community Releases The PHP Project
Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » Why 5.2 should not be delayed for E_DEPRECATED »

Why 5.2 should not be delayed for E_DEPRECATED

php.internals

Ilia A.

19 years ago
I've been reading people's replies to Marcus' RFC in regard to E_DEPRECATED and it seems that some people have expressed the want to delay 5.2 until mucking around with error handling is done one way or another. My simple answer to this is no. The long answer is as follows. PHP 5.2.0 is not the last 5.X release, there will be more patch level versions and at the very least at least one more major version, so we should not be trying to stuff every single feature under the sun into it as if it was the end of the 5 series. Furthermore, it makes little sense to make drastic error handling changes this late in the game, rushing the decision process and possibly excluding developers who do not read the list every day or are currently away. It should go through an extensive peer review and comment process, be tested, tried with real applications to see what breaks and so on, this is not a trivial change. Another words it is too major of a change to do at the last minute, rushing it will only lead to problems we'd end up cleaning up for many more releases to come. We also need to remember that 5.2 is already way behind schedule, which is important because it contains a fair number of security fixes, without which a good number of users are vulnerable to a variety of exploits. Delaying the release means not deploying those fixes and in my opinion is a disservice to all users of PHP. In my opinion we need to make a release, continue considering Marcus' RFC, develop a patch and push it to our real development tree PHP 6.0. If it proves to be solid and does not break (m)any applications it would be the first candidate to back-port to 5 series once 5.3 is under consideration. Ilia Alshanetsky

Lester Caine

19 years ago
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> I've been reading people's replies to Marcus' RFC in regard to > E_DEPRECATED and it seems that some people have expressed the want to > delay 5.2 until mucking around with error handling is done one way or > another. My simple answer to this is no.
SIMPLE QUESTION - I've just been through the exercise of finally moving everything to 5.1.6 after testing everything. I'd dropped back to 5.0.4 simply because 5.0.5 cause problems with nearly all of my sites and could not be used. Are any of the 'rule changes' in 5.2 going to cause the same compatibility problems as 5.0.5 did - if so and E_DEPRECATED is the correct state for these changes then it needs sorting before release rather than once again releasing code that just causes problems. At the very least we need a proper statement of what could be broken rather than the comments buried somewhere in the release notes ?
-- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/ Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc. - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

Ilia A.

19 years ago
For this particular purpose there is a fairly detailed README.UPDATE_5_2 that details the major functionality changes that have happened in PHP 5.2 On 24-Oct-06, at 12:17 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >> I've been reading people's replies to Marcus' RFC in regard to >> E_DEPRECATED and it seems that some people have expressed the want >> to delay 5.2 until mucking around with error handling is done one >> way or another. My simple answer to this is no. > > SIMPLE QUESTION - I've just been through the exercise of finally > moving everything to 5.1.6 after testing everything. I'd dropped > back to 5.0.4 simply because 5.0.5 cause problems with nearly all > of my sites and could not be used. Are any of the 'rule changes' in > 5.2 going to cause the same compatibility problems as 5.0.5 did - > if so and E_DEPRECATED is the correct state for these changes then > it needs sorting before release rather than once again releasing > code that just causes problems. > > At the very least we need a proper statement of what could be > broken rather than the comments buried somewhere in the release > notes ? > > -- > Lester Caine - G8HFL > ----------------------------- > L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk > Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ > ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/ > Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc. - http://www.firebirdsql.org/ > index.php > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
Ilia Alshanetsky

Zeev Suraski

19 years ago
Ilia, I think Wez's suggestion is the most practical one. Let's make sure we haven't introduced any fatal errors into 5.2 (and demote them to E_STRICT for now), and handle the rest of the suggestions afterwards. Zeev At 02:33 24/10/2006, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

Lukas Smith

19 years ago
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Ilia, > > I think Wez's suggestion is the most practical one. Let's make sure we > haven't introduced any fatal errors into 5.2 (and demote them to > E_STRICT for now), and handle the rest of the suggestions afterwards.
+1 I guess this is the best we can go. It might cause some trouble for people developing in E_STRICT, but I also think that 5.2.0 really needs to be in the hands of users. regards, Lukas

Ilia A.

19 years ago
Zeev, There are probably 5-6 new fatal errors in the engine since 5.1, some of which cannot be delegated to lower error reporting modes as they may cause engine instability or similar problems. Rasmus was going to make a list of all the newly added engine error changes, hopefully he'll have that list soon. On 24-Oct-06, at 2:55 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Ilia, > > I think Wez's suggestion is the most practical one. Let's make > sure we haven't introduced any fatal errors into 5.2 (and demote > them to E_STRICT for now), and handle the rest of the suggestions > afterwards. > > Zeev > > At 02:33 24/10/2006, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >> I've been reading people's replies to Marcus' RFC in regard to >> E_DEPRECATED and it seems that some people have expressed the want to >> delay 5.2 until mucking around with error handling is done one way or >> another. My simple answer to this is no. >> >> The long answer is as follows. >> >> PHP 5.2.0 is not the last 5.X release, there will be more patch level >> versions and at the very least at least one more major version, so we >> should not be trying to stuff every single feature under the sun >> into it as if it was the end of the 5 series. Furthermore, it makes >> little sense to make drastic error handling changes this late in the >> game, rushing the decision process and possibly excluding developers >> who do not read the list every day or are currently away. It should >> go through an extensive peer review and comment process, be tested, >> tried with real applications to see what breaks and so on, this is >> not a trivial change. Another words it is too major of a change to do >> at the last minute, rushing it will only lead to problems we'd end up >> cleaning up for many more releases to come. We also need to remember >> that 5.2 is already way behind schedule, which is important because >> it contains a fair number of security fixes, without which a good >> number of users are vulnerable to a variety of exploits. Delaying the >> release means not deploying those fixes and in my opinion is a >> disservice to all users of PHP. >> >> In my opinion we need to make a release, continue considering >> Marcus' RFC, develop a patch and push it to our real development tree >> PHP 6.0. If it proves to be solid and does not break (m)any >> applications it would be the first candidate to back-port to 5 series >> once 5.3 is under consideration. >> >> >> Ilia Alshanetsky >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
Ilia Alshanetsky

Rasmus Lerdorf

19 years ago
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Zeev, > > There are probably 5-6 new fatal errors in the engine since 5.1, some of > which cannot be delegated to lower error reporting modes as they may > cause engine instability or similar problems. Rasmus was going to make a > list of all the newly added engine error changes, hopefully he'll have > that list soon.
It's 7:30am here. Hold your horses. I have a couple of meetings this morning and will get to it after those. -Rasmus

Zeev Suraski

19 years ago
Well I'm definitely not referring to those, only the new strict OO fatals as per Marcus's original message... Zeev At 16:32 24/10/2006, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

Hannes Magnusson

19 years ago
On 10/24/06, Ilia Alshanetsky <ilia@prohost.org> wrote:
> Zeev, > > There are probably 5-6 new fatal errors in the engine since 5.1, some > of which cannot be delegated to lower error reporting modes as they > may cause engine instability or similar problems. Rasmus was going to > make a list of all the newly added engine error changes, hopefully > he'll have that list soon.
Attached is a list (php examples) over all the backwards incompatible error throwing I could find... -Hannes

Zeev Suraski

19 years ago
I think that a lot of those are legit - we only need to 'demote' the language-level warnings/errors that attempt to enforce strict OO standards. Warnings/errors that warn about unacceptable input are legitimate and should stay. Zeev At 16:57 24/10/2006, Hannes Magnusson wrote:

Ilia A.

19 years ago
Some OO errors like using iterators by reference and throwing exceptions out of __toString() are ligit as well, doing so would/ could cause problems. On 24-Oct-06, at 11:10 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I think that a lot of those are legit - we only need to 'demote' > the language-level warnings/errors that attempt to enforce strict > OO standards. > Warnings/errors that warn about unacceptable input are legitimate > and should stay. > > Zeev > > At 16:57 24/10/2006, Hannes Magnusson wrote: >> On 10/24/06, Ilia Alshanetsky <ilia@prohost.org> wrote: >>> Zeev, >>> >>> There are probably 5-6 new fatal errors in the engine since 5.1, >>> some >>> of which cannot be delegated to lower error reporting modes as they >>> may cause engine instability or similar problems. Rasmus was >>> going to >>> make a list of all the newly added engine error changes, hopefully >>> he'll have that list soon. >> >> Attached is a list (php examples) over all the backwards incompatible >> error throwing I could find... >> -Hannes >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> On 24-Oct-06, at 2:55 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote: >>> >>> > Ilia, >>> > >>> > I think Wez's suggestion is the most practical one. Let's make >>> > sure we haven't introduced any fatal errors into 5.2 (and demote >>> > them to E_STRICT for now), and handle the rest of the suggestions >>> > afterwards. >>> > >>> > Zeev >>> > >>> > At 02:33 24/10/2006, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >>> >> I've been reading people's replies to Marcus' RFC in regard to >>> >> E_DEPRECATED and it seems that some people have expressed the >>> want to >>> >> delay 5.2 until mucking around with error handling is done one >>> way or >>> >> another. My simple answer to this is no. >>> >> >>> >> The long answer is as follows. >>> >> >>> >> PHP 5.2.0 is not the last 5.X release, there will be more >>> patch level >>> >> versions and at the very least at least one more major >>> version, so we >>> >> should not be trying to stuff every single feature under the sun >>> >> into it as if it was the end of the 5 series. Furthermore, it >>> makes >>> >> little sense to make drastic error handling changes this late >>> in the >>> >> game, rushing the decision process and possibly excluding >>> developers >>> >> who do not read the list every day or are currently away. It >>> should >>> >> go through an extensive peer review and comment process, be >>> tested, >>> >> tried with real applications to see what breaks and so on, >>> this is >>> >> not a trivial change. Another words it is too major of a >>> change to do >>> >> at the last minute, rushing it will only lead to problems we'd >>> end up >>> >> cleaning up for many more releases to come. We also need to >>> remember >>> >> that 5.2 is already way behind schedule, which is important >>> because >>> >> it contains a fair number of security fixes, without which a good >>> >> number of users are vulnerable to a variety of exploits. >>> Delaying the >>> >> release means not deploying those fixes and in my opinion is a >>> >> disservice to all users of PHP. >>> >> >>> >> In my opinion we need to make a release, continue considering >>> >> Marcus' RFC, develop a patch and push it to our real >>> development tree >>> >> PHP 6.0. If it proves to be solid and does not break (m)any >>> >> applications it would be the first candidate to back-port to 5 >>> series >>> >> once 5.3 is under consideration. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Ilia Alshanetsky >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>> >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>> > >>> > -- >>> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>> > >>> > >>> >>> Ilia Alshanetsky >>> >>> -- >>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>> >> >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; >> name="backwards.incompatible.error.throwing.txt" >> Content-Disposition: attachment; >> filename="backwards.incompatible.error.throwing.txt" >> X-Attachment-Id: f_etof8h3u > >
Ilia Alshanetsky

Zeev Suraski

19 years ago
Right. Zeev At 17:13 24/10/2006, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

Marcus Börger

19 years ago
Hello Ilia, both, the __toString and the iterator in foreach by reference would put the engine into an unstable state. That saiditis very important that we do not blindley change error modes here. Most changes havebeen done for a good reason. And most of those were added lately because we are always pushing to fast with releases so that we only after releasing find out whatis causing problems. And at that time peoplealready started to use those 'features' andscream if we have to remove them. Just keep this in mind - please. best regards marcus Tuesday, October 24, 2006, 5:13:09 PM, you wrote:
> Some OO errors like using iterators by reference and throwing > exceptions out of __toString() are ligit as well, doing so would/ > could cause problems.
> On 24-Oct-06, at 11:10 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> I think that a lot of those are legit - we only need to 'demote' >> the language-level warnings/errors that attempt to enforce strict >> OO standards. >> Warnings/errors that warn about unacceptable input are legitimate >> and should stay. >> >> Zeev >> >> At 16:57 24/10/2006, Hannes Magnusson wrote: >>> On 10/24/06, Ilia Alshanetsky <ilia@prohost.org> wrote: >>>> Zeev, >>>> >>>> There are probably 5-6 new fatal errors in the engine since 5.1, >>>> some >>>> of which cannot be delegated to lower error reporting modes as they >>>> may cause engine instability or similar problems. Rasmus was >>>> going to >>>> make a list of all the newly added engine error changes, hopefully >>>> he'll have that list soon. >>> >>> Attached is a list (php examples) over all the backwards incompatible >>> error throwing I could find... >>> -Hannes >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 24-Oct-06, at 2:55 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote: >>>> >>>> > Ilia, >>>> > >>>> > I think Wez's suggestion is the most practical one. Let's make >>>> > sure we haven't introduced any fatal errors into 5.2 (and demote >>>> > them to E_STRICT for now), and handle the rest of the suggestions >>>> > afterwards. >>>> > >>>> > Zeev >>>> > >>>> > At 02:33 24/10/2006, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >>>> >> I've been reading people's replies to Marcus' RFC in regard to >>>> >> E_DEPRECATED and it seems that some people have expressed the >>>> want to >>>> >> delay 5.2 until mucking around with error handling is done one >>>> way or >>>> >> another. My simple answer to this is no. >>>> >> >>>> >> The long answer is as follows. >>>> >> >>>> >> PHP 5.2.0 is not the last 5.X release, there will be more >>>> patch level >>>> >> versions and at the very least at least one more major >>>> version, so we >>>> >> should not be trying to stuff every single feature under the sun >>>> >> into it as if it was the end of the 5 series. Furthermore, it >>>> makes >>>> >> little sense to make drastic error handling changes this late >>>> in the >>>> >> game, rushing the decision process and possibly excluding >>>> developers >>>> >> who do not read the list every day or are currently away. It >>>> should >>>> >> go through an extensive peer review and comment process, be >>>> tested, >>>> >> tried with real applications to see what breaks and so on, >>>> this is >>>> >> not a trivial change. Another words it is too major of a >>>> change to do >>>> >> at the last minute, rushing it will only lead to problems we'd >>>> end up >>>> >> cleaning up for many more releases to come. We also need to >>>> remember >>>> >> that 5.2 is already way behind schedule, which is important >>>> because >>>> >> it contains a fair number of security fixes, without which a good >>>> >> number of users are vulnerable to a variety of exploits. >>>> Delaying the >>>> >> release means not deploying those fixes and in my opinion is a >>>> >> disservice to all users of PHP. >>>> >> >>>> >> In my opinion we need to make a release, continue considering >>>> >> Marcus' RFC, develop a patch and push it to our real >>>> development tree >>>> >> PHP 6.0. If it proves to be solid and does not break (m)any >>>> >> applications it would be the first candidate to back-port to 5 >>>> series >>>> >> once 5.3 is under consideration. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Ilia Alshanetsky >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>>> >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>>> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> Ilia Alshanetsky >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>>> >>> >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; >>> name="backwards.incompatible.error.throwing.txt" >>> Content-Disposition: attachment; >>> filename="backwards.incompatible.error.throwing.txt" >>> X-Attachment-Id: f_etof8h3u >> >>
> Ilia Alshanetsky
Best regards, Marcus

Ilia A.

19 years ago
Thanks to Hannes we have a fairly complete list of changes in the error conditions, so far people who have commented out it did not appear to have identified anything objectionable. We need to make a decision on how to proceed, either to roll 5.2.0 now or wait another week. My vote is to roll things now... On 24-Oct-06, at 2:55 PM, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Ilia, > > both, the __toString and the iterator in foreach by reference > would put > the engine into an unstable state. That saiditis very important > that we do > not blindley change error modes here. Most changes havebeen done > for a good > reason. And most of those were added lately because we are always > pushing to > fast with releases so that we only after releasing find out whatis > causing > problems. And at that time peoplealready started to use those > 'features' > andscream if we have to remove them. Just keep this in mind - please. > > best regards > marcus > > > Tuesday, October 24, 2006, 5:13:09 PM, you wrote: > >> Some OO errors like using iterators by reference and throwing >> exceptions out of __toString() are ligit as well, doing so would/ >> could cause problems. > > >> On 24-Oct-06, at 11:10 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote: > >>> I think that a lot of those are legit - we only need to 'demote' >>> the language-level warnings/errors that attempt to enforce strict >>> OO standards. >>> Warnings/errors that warn about unacceptable input are legitimate >>> and should stay. >>> >>> Zeev >>> >>> At 16:57 24/10/2006, Hannes Magnusson wrote: >>>> On 10/24/06, Ilia Alshanetsky <ilia@prohost.org> wrote: >>>>> Zeev, >>>>> >>>>> There are probably 5-6 new fatal errors in the engine since 5.1, >>>>> some >>>>> of which cannot be delegated to lower error reporting modes as >>>>> they >>>>> may cause engine instability or similar problems. Rasmus was >>>>> going to >>>>> make a list of all the newly added engine error changes, hopefully >>>>> he'll have that list soon. >>>> >>>> Attached is a list (php examples) over all the backwards >>>> incompatible >>>> error throwing I could find... >>>> -Hannes >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 24-Oct-06, at 2:55 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ilia, >>>>>> >>>>>> I think Wez's suggestion is the most practical one. Let's make >>>>>> sure we haven't introduced any fatal errors into 5.2 (and demote >>>>>> them to E_STRICT for now), and handle the rest of the suggestions >>>>>> afterwards. >>>>>> >>>>>> Zeev >>>>>> >>>>>> At 02:33 24/10/2006, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >>>>>>> I've been reading people's replies to Marcus' RFC in regard to >>>>>>> E_DEPRECATED and it seems that some people have expressed the >>>>> want to >>>>>>> delay 5.2 until mucking around with error handling is done one >>>>> way or >>>>>>> another. My simple answer to this is no. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The long answer is as follows. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PHP 5.2.0 is not the last 5.X release, there will be more >>>>> patch level >>>>>>> versions and at the very least at least one more major >>>>> version, so we >>>>>>> should not be trying to stuff every single feature under the sun >>>>>>> into it as if it was the end of the 5 series. Furthermore, it >>>>> makes >>>>>>> little sense to make drastic error handling changes this late >>>>> in the >>>>>>> game, rushing the decision process and possibly excluding >>>>> developers >>>>>>> who do not read the list every day or are currently away. It >>>>> should >>>>>>> go through an extensive peer review and comment process, be >>>>> tested, >>>>>>> tried with real applications to see what breaks and so on, >>>>> this is >>>>>>> not a trivial change. Another words it is too major of a >>>>> change to do >>>>>>> at the last minute, rushing it will only lead to problems we'd >>>>> end up >>>>>>> cleaning up for many more releases to come. We also need to >>>>> remember >>>>>>> that 5.2 is already way behind schedule, which is important >>>>> because >>>>>>> it contains a fair number of security fixes, without which a >>>>>>> good >>>>>>> number of users are vulnerable to a variety of exploits. >>>>> Delaying the >>>>>>> release means not deploying those fixes and in my opinion is a >>>>>>> disservice to all users of PHP. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In my opinion we need to make a release, continue considering >>>>>>> Marcus' RFC, develop a patch and push it to our real >>>>> development tree >>>>>>> PHP 6.0. If it proves to be solid and does not break (m)any >>>>>>> applications it would be the first candidate to back-port to 5 >>>>> series >>>>>>> once 5.3 is under consideration. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ilia Alshanetsky >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>>>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ilia Alshanetsky >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; >>>> name="backwards.incompatible.error.throwing.txt" >>>> Content-Disposition: attachment; >>>> filename="backwards.incompatible.error.throwing.txt" >>>> X-Attachment-Id: f_etof8h3u >>> >>> > >> Ilia Alshanetsky > > > > > > > > Best regards, > Marcus > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
Ilia Alshanetsky

Christian Schneider

19 years ago
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Thanks to Hannes we have a fairly complete list of changes in the error > conditions, so far people who have commented out it did not appear to > have identified anything objectionable. We need to make a decision on > how to proceed, either to roll 5.2.0 now or wait another week. My vote > is to roll things now...
Out of curiosity What's the plan for E_DEPRECATED now? Regarding the release of PHP 5.2 and OO strictness: I never got any comment about my OO strictness patch to not complain about adding default values to parameters or changes on static methods which both do not break the quoted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liskov_substitution_principle I would have hoped for a little info why this patch was not considered. Regards, - Chris

Marcus Börger

19 years ago
Hello Christian, Liskov applies to static methods as soon as calls via objects are common which is true for PHP. Actually in PHP static methods are inherited as any other method (also true for a lot of other languages). Now given Liskov rules you can as well add default parameter values as add new parameters with default values and even change type hints (when respecting the rules correctly). With C++ the first language has proven that changing default parameter values is a bad idea. There however mainly because they are bound at compile time based on the compile time types, which results in default values that are mostly not what you would expect. In PHP it might work as expected but then all programmers that come from langiages like C++ get confused. Also it would disallow a few optimizer things later (going the C++ way of compile time function invocatoin binding). The same holds for new additional parameters. In most languages that is no option because it would effectively be a different function. In PHP it would eventually work but add more confusion that it would help. The last point, changing type hints in derived class' methods, was discussed at PDM and declined. The main reason for that decision were that all languages we knew of do not support it and that most people even do not understand the rules which are quite the opposite of what most people think. However the point of adding E_DEPRECATED is still open. Where open only means which version will first have it. From my perspective that will be either 5.3.0 or 6.0.0 depending on whetever comes out first. Helping here would be greatly appreciated. best regards marcus Friday, November 3, 2006, 4:31:52 PM, you wrote:
> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >> Thanks to Hannes we have a fairly complete list of changes in the error >> conditions, so far people who have commented out it did not appear to >> have identified anything objectionable. We need to make a decision on >> how to proceed, either to roll 5.2.0 now or wait another week. My vote >> is to roll things now...
> Out of curiosity What's the plan for E_DEPRECATED now?
> Regarding the release of PHP 5.2 and OO strictness: > I never got any comment about my OO strictness patch to not complain > about adding default values to parameters or changes on static methods > which both do not break the quoted > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liskov_substitution_principle
> I would have hoped for a little info why this patch was not considered.
> Regards, > - Chris
Best regards, Marcus