Patrick,
Sorry, but removing the E_DEPRECATED notice when moved to PECL is not > part of the proposed RFC and should certainly not happen. > The proposal doesn't actually propose anything about a move to PECL. It's listed in the "possible future actions" section exactly once. But the RFC doesn't take a stand on it in either direction. So I'm not sure that you can make that argument. > Adding it in one location and not the other does > > not make sense. > > Absolutely! There is no reason to remove that kind of notice in the future. > That's your opinion. Please realize it as such and that other viewpoints also exist. For example, I have the viewpoint that deprecation applies to the LANGUAGE. The inclusion of the extension in the language is what's being deprecated. Even after it's pulled, someone else can maintain it. We can say that you should avoid it, but there's nothing stoping someone else from continuing maintenance of it as a fork. And adding in the other missing functionality (possibly breaking BC, possibly not, whatever). Therefore, in my viewpoint, the deprecation notices only apply to the inclusion of the extension in the core language distribution. Not to the extension itself. I'm not saying that either one of us is right or wrong, just that there are other opinions. To keep this discussion productive, please refrain from using absolutes like that... Thanks Anthony
