Re: Re: Naming changes.

> Actually, I think that shattering compatibility like this should be a minor IMHO: If the functions that used to work are issuing Warnings in the first phase of change, I'd also say that's worth a 4.1 Otherwise, web-sites using error_reporting=15 will break all over the place on a minor revision, and that's bad... Actually, even with a 4.1 that would be bad... If the DOCUMENTATION is changing first, along with both function names silently "working", and then in a *later* revision the Warnings start appearing, followed by escalating error signals (as outlined by James, I think) minor revisions would be okay... But it would probably be good to not escalate every minor revision -- More like 2 or 3 minor revisions per escalation to give people time to adjust not only their code, but to the "plan" Perhaps all renamed functions should have an auto-generated link to a web page explaining the procedure, whatever it is decided to be, and the list of planned name changes with a time-table or revision schedule... If that could be worked into the macro[s], it would probably help a lot. I guess I'm suggesting the following "phases" for James' plan: Phase I 1. Documentation notes both function names, clearly marking the deprecated one, with a link to a page describing the scheduled changes and list of functions to change. 2. Both functions work with no warning/error/etc Phase II, at least 2 or 3 minor revisions later 1. Documentation notes both function names, clearly marking the deprecated one with a note about the warning message, and the same link as above. 2. Deprecated function issues the lowest level Warning possible. Phase III and following, at least 2 or 3 minor revisions after previous Phase Same as above, but one level higher in the error system. Final Phase -- The deprecated function should remain in the manual another 2 or 3 revisions, and finally be phased out. The *new* function names should continue to point to the page describing the changes that occurred and list of functions that changed at least through and including the next *major* revision.