On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Zeev Suraski wrote: > At 17:21 24/08/2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > >Steph wrote: > > > If there's the capability to run PHP 6 without Unicode support, surely > > > there's no reason for extensions to lose back compatability when they're > > > updated...? > > > >That's going to be tough. They will definitely lose binary > >compatibility because all sorts of internal structures are changing > >which a runtime switch can't do anything about. We may be able to keep > >compatibility at the source level, but having extensions that fall over > >when you turn on unicode semantics would be a real pain. It might be a > >feature to break them and have a nice FAQ on what needs to be done to > >upgrade the extension to support Unicode. > > > >Not that I agree with Derick on changing the meaning of E_ERROR. > > I think we should strive for maintaining source level compatibility. I don't > think it's a good feature to break the compatibility on purpose :)
I just implemented a suggestion by somebody (George! :). I don't care which way we go. I'll update the patch to go for E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR tomorrow. Derick -- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
