Re: date() behaviour changed in 5.1?
| From: | Pierre | Date: | Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:38:05 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: date() behaviour changed in 5.1? | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-20022@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 09:29:29 -0800
rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) wrote:
>> my answer was to Jani's.
>
> I realize that, but Jani said "bad data" not data of the wrong type.
> Your example didn't have any bad data. You just had "100" which is a
> perfectly valid numeric string and will work in all cases.
The point is still valid. I believe there is will be enough changes in
5.1 in the date area without this one.
I do not consider trailing white chars as invalid (especially not
spaces). It is common to pass those values directly from a database
results, results can sometimes use fixed length strings.
--Pierre