On Sun, Aug 18, 2024, at 00:40, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote: > > > On 17 August 2024 22:33:03 BST, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes> wrote: > >I wouldn't consider it a BC break, no. But (ironically?), Symfony crashes > >with this change. It really shouldn't but ... > > I don't think it makes sense to say "it breaks existing code, but it's not a > compatibility break". > > Perhaps what you're saying is "it's only a BC break for code that's not > following best practices"? > > But more relevant than whether you think the current code is "correct" is the > fact that a) it will need to be changed to work with your proposal; and b) > the change is simple and can be done in advance. > > So the RFC should acknowledge this BC break, but could argue that it's small > enough to include in a minor version. This is actually really common - RFCs > that introduce a new global function often acknowledge that it would break > existing userland functions with that name. Between that and obviously > serious BC breaks like *removing* a function, there's a big grey area where > we have to make a judgement call. > > Regards, > Rowan Tommins > [IMSoP] >
Hey Rowan, Ah, that's a good tip and point. Thank you. I'll update the RFC! — Rob
