Re: Proposal for serious BC compatibility aka language versioning

On 02/03/2013 11:44 AM, Karoly Negyesi wrote: > Well, either I misunderstood the policy or it's broken. Here are some > (note: please do not argue whether these are more correct than before, > they very well might be but they broke backwards compatibility): > > For example, in 5.4 array_diff_assoc began to throw a notice when > casting to string. > > Again in 5.4, using a string offset against a string throws a warning. > It wasn't doing that before. We do not consider a change in warnings/notices a BC break. I realize for certain test frameworks and custom error handlers it could break things if they are expecting a specific warning or lack of warning, but the code itself behaves exactly as it did before and as such there is no BC break. -Rasmus