On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jul 27, 2014 8:17 PM, "Lonny Kapelushnik" <lo...@lonnylot.com> wrote: >> > >> > On Jul 27, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> However the idea to add yet other warnings/notices to ext/gd is not >> >> something I like to see in GD. I will rather remove many for php-next >> >> instead of adding more. Also some new font APIs may as well make the >> >> whole ttf ones less relevant, see the upstream version. >> > >> > >> > Pierre, >> > >> > I would only want to add E_DEPRECATED to the function calls if we are >> actually going to remove them. >> >> Hm. I do not think it is a good idea. As I said, I am really not willing >> to >> add more warnings for the sake of adding them. >> >> There is no difference in the implementation whether one uses these >> functions or the other. A note in the doc stating that should suffice. Or >> do you have an argument to still do it? What would the win? > > > If there are two functions doing essentially the same thing, we should > remove one of them. In order to remove a function it must first be > deprecated. The proposal sounds reasonable to me. There's no need to keep > around legacy cruft through aliases.
I am not arguing about that for next but the addition of yet another warning with no gain. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
