Re: PHP 4.0 Bug #6625 Updated: htmlspecialchars shouldescape"'" character

> Sterling Hughes <sterling@php.net> wrote: > > Its funny I mentioned the same analogy to him in a private e-mail. > > Could there be any truth to that? Nah, we're moron developers, remember? > > I started out with an entirely neutral opinion of this cmv fool, and was > quite polite to him. It was clearly a waste of my time; from a standing > start, he quickly proved himself to be completely devoid of any signs of > intelligence. He doesn't even seem to understand the concept of "private > email". Ho hum. I'd like to give you guys some credit, but you really make > it hard. > Ho Hum. Ho Hum. This has become pretty dumb. I'll save everyone the suspense, I'll use my physic abilities to predict the outcome of this thread: Point Counterpoint + 2 insults Counter-Counter Point no insults Counter-Counter-Counter Point + 3 insults Original Point - plus a pissy remark or two Original Counter-Point + 5 insults rinse and repeat. Now to the subject (right now I'm wondering who's dumber the fool, or the fool who follows him): I happen to agree with cmv, this is why: It breaks backwards compatibility. This will screw up other peoples scripts and provide minimal convience that you could implement yourself. Would it make you feel better if we said its broken? Fine its broken, we'll explore the paradigm you propose. We have a function that is "broken" in the sense that it doesn't support a feature that in an ideal world it would. The function still works as far as it holds true to its documentation, it performs the operations that it says it will. This function has been this way since PHP3. Fixing this "broken" function gives the programmer a trivial advantage that he could easily implement otherwise. The drawbacks, it will break plenty of scripts that do use the function without this feature. What would make more sense you to, adding this trivial feature, and break thousands of scripts, *or* leaving the functionality that is currently working in the sense that it works in accordance to how it is documented, and letting programmers who want the extra functionality take the two minutes to write the functionality themselves? I'd agree that breaking backwards compatibility might be neccessary if it was a serious flaw. I'm less for keeping PHP backwards compatible at the expense of the overall quality of PHP than most people on this list. I personally think that we should start making a list of things that if broken will make PHP better, and then around PHP 5, decide to eliminate backwards compability and add these features and fix the related bugs that are in the code for backwards compatibility. But think about it, is it really worth breaking backwards compatibility with a whole bunch of scripts just to escape the ' character? Especially, if you want this done you can spend two minutes writing a wrapper that will do this for you? I don't think so. > > "Workers never talk and talkers never work" > > PHP *needs* an improvement in the talk:work ratio. It looks like too many > people are working without thinking. > That wasn't what I meant by the statement. What I meant was a lot of people talk about what's wrong, very few people actually take the initiative to solve the problem. To quote Larry Wall "As history shows many people will be a part of the problem, few will be part of the solution." > > I must admit, I take a morbid amusement at his comments, I guess its > > because I'm too stupid to understand them. > > I suspect it's because you're *less* stupid than the rest of 'em. > A complement to be sure! Didya' here that everyone, I'm less stupid then you are! :-) -Sterling