Re: [VOTE]strn(case)cmp supporting a negative length as its third paramter

From: Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:26:38 +0000
Subject: Re: [VOTE]strn(case)cmp supporting a negative length as its third paramter
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  Groups: php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to [email protected] to get a copy of this message
Hi Rasmus:

   could we well docuemnt this(changelog) to avoding such bad thing happen?

   and sure,  I agree and know what you are worried,  also I am very
respect you .

   so here is the thing,  if I can't get your support, I think I
should darw back the proposal.

thanks

2011/8/15 Rasmus Lerdorf <[email protected]>:
> On 08/15/2011 01:51 AM, Laruence wrote:
>> Hi Lester:
>>    I totally agree with you about bc break things,
>>
>>    but actully I don't think this proposal will bring a big bc break,
>> it's a new approach , but not a big change,
>>
>>    I am meaning that the old codes can work fine because rarely codes
>> depends on a negative length.
>>
>>    do you agree?
>
> I agree that this is not a "big" BC break. However, my argument is that
> small BC breaks like this are actually much worse than "big" BC breaks.
> A big and obvious BC break is usually easy to deal with. An accumulation
> of small subtle BC breaks that rarely hit you and then only on certain
> input strings, those are the ones that kill you.
>
> -Rasmus
>



-- 
Laruence  Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/


Thread (33 messages)

« previous php.internals (#54624) next »