Re: Re: svn: /php/php-src/trunk/ UPGRADING.INTERNALSext/date/php_date.c ext/date/php_date.h
| From: | Derick Rethans | Date: | Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:57:17 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: svn: /php/php-src/trunk/ UPGRADING.INTERNALSext/date/php_date.c ext/date/php_date.h | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-49798@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Peter Cowburn wrote:
> On 28 September 2010 08:19, Michael Wallner <mike@php.net> wrote:
> > On 09/28/2010 07:05 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> >>
> >> 2010/9/27 Johannes Schlüter<johannes@schlueters.de>:
> >>>
> >>> I think Mike's point was that these functions, according to the comment,
> >>> only exist for BC reasons. So they should either keep BC or be dropped.
> >
> >> The only usage php_idate() exists for is the idate() function, i
> >> greped pecl and tried to use OpenGrok, but it was only used within the
> >> date extension, so i think the break is minor to nothing.
> >
> > So? Drop it or leave it alone :) idate() seems as useful as a nipple on my
> > back...
>
> I use idate(), to this day, in preference of (int) date(). Whilst it's
> hardly a huge issue, dare I say many folks don't even know if its
> existence, if it is dropped, I may cross whomever does it off of my
> Christmas card list.
The idate() function isn't going to be dropped; we're just making sure
it doesn't break BC here. And FWIF, I agree with Michael here: No need
to break (internal) BC over such an unimportant thing.
Derick
--
http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug