Re: Re: cvs: php4/ext/odbc php_odbc.c

On 6 Mar 2002, Stig S. Bakken wrote: > Andi, you should grow a long beard, bleach it and dye it light gray. > Wear a robe, get a hunchback and a long stick, and it will be your right > to be sharp or senile at will. :-) But he looks like Richard "Smellyman" Stallman then.... that's evil! Derick > > - Stig > > On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 07:07, Andi Gutmans wrote: > > That just shows how senile I am :) > > Is there any way to check if the PHP developer is trying to send the > > arguments in the old way and print out an E_WARNING telling him the > > function proto has changed and how to fix it? (Just for a couple of versions) > > > > Andi > > > > At 19:07 05/03/2002 -0500, Dan Kalowsky wrote: > > >Andi, > > > > > >This patch was initially ment to be applied for the 4.1 system. You and I > > >had spoken at the time (I believe about 4.0.5) about this very patch > > >(because I had made use of some screwy misuse of a Zend macro). We > > >both agreed that variable order was wrong and should be corrected. It was > > >under your urging that I wait until a semi-major version upgrade to make > > >the change (at that time 4.1). Due to unforseen circumstances, I missed > > >making the patch for 4.1, and have since waited for 4.2 thinking that was > > >a major enough of an upgrade. If you feel otherwise, it can be taken > > >out. I had just figured 4.2 was a major enough update that it sould go > > >in. There had been a message in the TODO about doing this for awhile, but > > >I see it's been taken out sometime without my notice. :\ > > > > > >Personally, I find it annoying, inconsistent, and confusing with the rest > > >of the PHP behavior to have a (required, not required, required) variable > > >order. > > > > > >I did place a note in the PHP documentation awhile back (according > > >Jani/cvs in June 2001) warning users this function was to change. In fact > > >the documentation specifically states "In PHP 4.1, this function will be > > >moved to the following format..." Guess I fibbed just a bit. > > > > > >This should also return functionality that many users have requested which is > > >odbc_fetch_into($result, $rArray, $row_num++) capability, but I haven't > > >had a chance to test that yet... my ODBC datasource is MIA at the moment. > > > > > >I do not disagree though that this will burn users of the odbc_fetch_into > > >functionality. Actually on more careful consideration, it won't effect > > >all the users of it... only those that use the 3 variable form of the > > >function really. I still tend to believe the pros outweight the cons. > > > > > >Pros: > > >Consistency with all PHP function variable arguements > > >Return of incrementing capability to pass row_number as a constant. > > > > > >Cons: > > >Breaks BC from pre-4.0.6. > > > > > > > > >If you have any others to list, please add them to the list. > > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------< > > >Dan Kalowsky "Tonight I think I'll walk alone. > > >http://www.deadmime.org/~dank I'll find soul as > > >I go home." > > >dank@deadmime.org - "Temptation", New Order > > > > > > > > >-- > > >PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > > >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > -- > > PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > -- > PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PHP: Scripting the Web - derick@php.net All your branches are belong to me! SRM: Site Resource Manager - www.vl-srm.net -----------------------------------------------------------------------