Re: question about backward-compatibility break/bug in php 5.2.6

I'm not sure that there's any problem with the documentation (although it wouldn't hurt to mention it in the comments). What is it about "0000-00-00 00:00:00" that makes it an invalid date? (See Christian's explanation) Zach On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Jack Steadman <jack@smartertravelmedia.com> wrote: > > > Ah, yes, the change responsible is the following: > > > > > > <http://cvs.php.net/viewvc.cgi/php-src/ext/date/lib/timelib.h? > > r1=1.10.2.11.2.4&r2=1.10.2.11.2.5&pathrev=PHP_5_2> > > > > It fixes bug #44209 > > <http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=44209>. > > OK, thanks, it's good to understand the change in behavior. > > > > Or to put it that way: The current behaviour of PHP 5.2.6 is the > > expected behaviour (at least what reading the source tells about the > > author's intentions) and it was broken before. > > > > As to whether it's a good idea that strtotime() accepts invalid dates, > > I'll stay out of that discussion. > > If this is the way it's always been (accepting zero month and day values > as you described earlier), then I suspect that you'll be reluctant to > change behavior without significant thought (and of course, I wouldn't > expect otherwise, even though I've expressed my disagreement with the > current behavior). > > What's the best way to get this fully documented? Should I submit a new > bug report relating to the documentation, rather than a PHP bug? > > Jack > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >