Re: Re: com php-src: Bug 49898 __getCookies() method implementation: ext/soap/soap.c ext/soap/tests/bug49898.phpt

/cc doc list On 19 June 2014 16:17, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote: > Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 19/06/2014): > > Personally I think that 1 would be acceptable if we can keep these feature >> introductions as rare events, 2 would be a somewhat arbitrary restriction, >> and 3 could be confusing for the early adopters(slow adopters wouldn't >> really realize that the 5.6.X version missing feature Z was released after >> 5.5.Y which has the feature, so they wouldn't have expectations), >> > > Is there a convention in the manual for the situation where a function is > introduced in parallel in different branches? It can't say "PHP 5 >= > 5.5.15" if it's not also in 5.6.0. But if we were confident of it being in > 5.6.1, it could say "PHP 5.5 >= 5.5.15 < 5.6, >= 5.6.1" or something less > messy than that, and anyone using 5.6 would know that it was coming to them > soon... There is no convention, nor I believe precedence, for this special case. Though, we have functions that were in different major branches: you'll see version information like "PHP 4 >= 4.1.0, PHP 5 >= 5.2.0". I think it would be a mistake to start using minor versions ("PHP 5.5 >= 5.5.15"). If we must do it, then perhaps something like "PHP 5 >= 5.5.15 and < 5.6.0" (there is precedent for using "and" like that). Then we could add on the 5.6 version info too, after a comma (we do this *very* regularly, for example when an ext is available in PHP and PECL). In the end, whichever way we do choose, it's still going to be messy! > > > -- > Rowan Collins > [IMSoP] > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >