Re: Re: com php-src: Bug 49898 __getCookies() method implementation: ext/soap/soap.c ext/soap/tests/bug49898.phpt
| From: | Ferenc Kovacs | Date: | Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:18:03 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: com php-src: Bug 49898 __getCookies() method implementation: ext/soap/soap.c ext/soap/tests/bug49898.phpt | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.doc php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to phpdoc+get-969385009@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com>
wrote:
> /cc doc list
>
>
> On 19 June 2014 16:17, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 19/06/2014):
>>
>> Personally I think that 1 would be acceptable if we can keep these
>>> feature
>>> introductions as rare events, 2 would be a somewhat arbitrary
>>> restriction,
>>> and 3 could be confusing for the early adopters(slow adopters wouldn't
>>> really realize that the 5.6.X version missing feature Z was released
>>> after
>>> 5.5.Y which has the feature, so they wouldn't have expectations),
>>>
>>
>> Is there a convention in the manual for the situation where a function is
>> introduced in parallel in different branches? It can't say "PHP 5 >=
>> 5.5.15" if it's not also in 5.6.0. But if we were confident of it being in
>> 5.6.1, it could say "PHP 5.5 >= 5.5.15 < 5.6, >= 5.6.1" or something
>> less
>> messy than that, and anyone using 5.6 would know that it was coming to them
>> soon...
>
>
> There is no convention, nor I believe precedence, for this special case.
>
> Though, we have functions that were in different major branches: you'll
> see version information like "PHP 4 >= 4.1.0, PHP 5 >= 5.2.0".
>
> I think it would be a mistake to start using minor versions ("PHP 5.5 >=
> 5.5.15"). If we must do it, then perhaps something like "PHP 5 >= 5.5.15
> and < 5.6.0" (there is precedent for using "and" like that).
>
Yeah, but this SoapClient::__getCookies() was added to both 5.4 and
5.5(5.4.30 and 5.5.14 respectively, none of those are released yet), so we
can't say "PHP 5 >= 5.5.14" and saying "PHP 5 >= 5.4.30" would imply
that
we have it in 5.5.0 which isn't the case.
> Then we could add on the 5.6 version info too, after a comma (we do this
> *very* regularly, for example when an ext is available in PHP and PECL).
> In the end, whichever way we do choose, it's still going to be messy!
>
>
yeah, I can't really come up with anything simple and unambiguous.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu