Re: Re: [VOTE] Reclassify E_STRICT notices

Is the last one really a strict? Sounds like it should be a warning to me. Similar to when you for each over something not an array On 1 Apr 2015 15:58, "Nikita Popov" <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi internals! > >> > >> To ensure we have no shortage of new RFC votes... > >> > >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reclassify_e_strict#vote > >> > >> Voting is open for ten days :) > >> > > > > RFC is accepted with 28 votes in favor and 4 against. > > > > The RFC is now implemented. However while landing the patch I noticed that > I missed a number of E_STRICT notices in libraries. In particular: > > * mktime() without arguments throws "You should be using the time() > function instead" > > * htmlentities() with some encodings like EUC-JP throws "Only basic > entities substitution is supported for multi-byte encodings other than > UTF-8; functionality is equivalent to htmlspecialchars" > > * mysqli::next_result() if there is no next result throws "There is no next > result set" > > While the first one sounds like something that should be deprecated, I > couldn't say what to do with the other two. > > Nikita >