On Jun 23, 2015 1:21 PM, "Rasmus Lerdorf" <ras...@lerdorf.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/22/2015 11:51 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >> Is it a BC break against real code though? Fixing tests isn't a
> >> big deal. What kind of real code would break by turning calls with
> >> the wrong number of args from an error to a warning?
> >
> > Well, if we move to checking in ZPP only, then some of the errors that
> > previously were fatals (like iterator_array("")) would now become
> > warnings. In fact, even type mismatch is a warning for ZPP, which may
> > be unexpected, as it was a fatal before, so we may want to change that.
> >
> > But in some situation, like argument number mismatch, we will have a
> > warning, where before it was a fatal error. Which isn't strictly BC
> > break but allows some code to pass which previously didn't and may
> > hide some bugs.
> >
> > So we may want to be careful there.
>
> I suppose so, but this seems like a relatively minor level of BC
> breakage especially for a major version bump.I also think it is a rather minor problem. And to minimize the risk to get such things accepted for 7.x I would rather go with 7.0. We have time to catch some of the troubles if any until final. > -Rasmus > >
