Re: Re: [PEPr] Comment on RFC::Requiring E_STRICT Compatibilityfor NewPEAR Packages

Alexey Borzov wrote:

Hi, Joshua Eichorn wrote:

That would be a solution that breaks our BC standards (though maybe still sensible). But its also more related to another RFC that passed long ago on what error handling mechanism should be used for PHP5 (even if PEAR.php provides some non error handling related features).

It just seems silly to me to rewrite a couple hundred packages making a 1% or less change. Now we have twice the # of packages to support and we've gained nothing except for making a couple people who really like running with E_STRICT on happy.

We've gained couple hundred packages that are forward-compatible, i.e. will not break spectacularly when E_STRICT is promoted to E_ERROR.

Not necessarily. Currently the planning is sort of hazy and confusing to me. The question is how they are promoting things. I expect PHP6 to introduce new E_STRICT aspects. Will these also become an E_ERROR? The fact of the matter is that there is no proper vision for E_STRICT and there will probably never be, because internals works without planning and by commit first think never. regards, Lukas