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

From: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:18:03 +0000
Subject: Re: Re: com php-src: Bug 49898 __getCookies() method implementation: ext/soap/soap.c ext/soap/tests/bug49898.phpt
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6  Groups: php.doc php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to internals+get-74995@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com> wrote: > /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). > Yeah, but this SoapClient::__getCookies() was added to both 5.4 and 5.5(5.4.30 and 5.5.14 respectively, none of those are released yet), so we can't say "PHP 5 >= 5.5.14" and saying "PHP 5 >= 5.4.30" would imply that we have it in 5.5.0 which isn't the case. > 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! > > yeah, I can't really come up with anything simple and unambiguous. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

« previous php.internals (#74995) next »