Re: Re: Making old PEAR packages (more) E_STRICT compatible

Gregory Beaver wrote:

If you feel these changes can be done with minimal work, no BC issues, and no maintenance issues, I would not oppose them. However, I did not get the impression that it would be minimal.

I expect only minimal changes. For instance, I filed bug 9947 about making these changes for the Net_SMTP and Mail packages and then went out for dinner, and when I was back, the fix was committed to CVS :-) That's open source when it works! The only two changes I am suggesting are these (unless there are more problematic coding patterns that I am unaware of): - Avoid "$foo =& new Bar()". In most cases, this can simply be replaced with "$foo = new Bar()". In rare cases, the solution is a bit more complicated. - When overriding a method in a child class, make sure the method signature is compatible with the method in the parent class (this is generally good coding practice). I'll post some patches soon. I hope they will be useful to E_STRICT fans :-) Christian