Re: Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Arrays starting with a negative index

On 7 June 2017 17:36:01 BST, "Pedro Magalhães" <mail@pmmaga.net> wrote: >On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> >wrote: > >> On 7 June 2017 15:23:13 BST, "Pedro Magalhães" <mail@pmmaga.net> >wrote: >> >On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Rowan Collins ><rowan.collins@gmail.com> >> >wrote: >> > >> >> you can't simply pass something that *incidentally* changes a >> >> pre-established rule >> > >> > >> >Hi Rowan, >> > >> >Would you consider that that is not the case for your own RFC? >> >https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate-bareword-strings >> >> >> I'm sorry, I don't follow. What rule is broken, incidentally or >> explicitly, by that RFC? >> > >The page that was already mentioned on this thread: >https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess#releases_cycle >explicitly >states >the following: > >x.y.z to x.y+1.z >> Backward compatibility must be kept > > >However, a number of already implemented RFCs for 7.2 do not follow >that >rule strictly: .. >I don't mean at all that these should not have been accepted. >Especially >the ones that initiate a deprecation phase. Deprecating something is basically the opposite of breaking backwards compatibility in a minor release. The entire point of deprecation messages is to indicate ahead of time that something will be broken later, but not break it yet. Unless you're being purposefully pedantic to try and prove that black is white, adding any log message is barely even a functional change, let alone a breaking one. That said, there *are* sometimes RFCs that break the rule. Usually, they get feedback regarding the break, just as this one is. Often, they attempt to justify an exception to the rule, as I and others have suggested this one could. I don't always agree with the way those exceptions are applied (too_few_args was one I opposed, for instance). I hope you can see that saying "well, we allow people to fix spelling mistakes in error messages, so we might as well allow changes that completely change the behaviour of a core function" is pretty ridiculous. We have a rule, there are grey areas, and we try to navigate them; in this case, people are saying the RFC has fallen the wrong side of that grey area. If you disagree, feel free to comment on this specific case. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]