Re: ref fix revisited

On 9/13/05, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote: > Just got back from Sri Lanka and am catching up on email. But in > general I don't agree with your statement that things that are quiet in > 5.0.4 must be quiet in 5.0.5. Quietly corrupting memory doesn't really > work. Sometimes we need to break things slightly to fix things. I agree about the fix, not about the fatal error in 5.0.5. See my answer in my post. > My message was more about if there was a better way to fix it. I looked at > the code and couldn't tell if it was somehow possible to catch this on > the write instead of on the call. It sounds like that isn't possible. > The second approach to try to regain some backwards compatibility is to > make some of our internal functions aware of the fact that they are > being passed a ref to a temp var and if so pretend it wasn't passed by > reference. As it is too late now anyway, regain BC makes little sense. Unless we restore it all related BC breaks and fix the internal temp vars management (which is equal to a rewrite of this part). From a user point of view, it will only end to the same confusion as in arguments order, or other little annoyances ;) Regards, --Pierre