Hi all, On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19/08/2016 16:12, Pierre Joye wrote: >> >> I am against removing them, now or in 8.x. this is the kind of things that >> makes migrations painful. They are broken on some cases? Fix them maybe? > > > The thing that is broken about the functions is not the functionality, but > the name. > > I suppose you could change them to recode Windows CP-1252, which is more > common than latin-1 and mostly compatible with it, but that still breaks > European sites using ISO 8859-15 (latin 9), and frankly would just further > reinforce the common misapprehensions around "extended ASCII" and "decoding > UTF8". > > What do you think of making them aliases of the new names latin1_to_utf8 and > utf8_to_latin1? We needn't even deprecate the old names, but at least it > would draw more attention to what they actually do?
I agree the name is problematic, not what it does. Having aliases is good solution. It worked well in pgsql module. Old names are still usable and I think almost all codes use new names now. I'll update the RFC to have aliases rather than removing. Since these are XML module functions, the name would be xml_latin1_to_utf8() and xml_utf8_to_latin1(). Suggestions for names are appreciated. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
