Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalent PCRE functions

The POSIX regex functions are currently marked as DEPRECATED in 5.3.0 and
are due to be removed completely in PHP 6. I propose that instead of being
dropped they be converted into wrappers for the equivalent PCRE functions.



It does not matter how long various people have been preaching in various
unofficial channels that users should switch to using the PCRE functions
(preg_*) instead of the POSIX ones (ereg_*) as many users simply do not
access those channels. The first time that a significant number of users
will become aware of this is when they switch to 5.3.0 or later, and they
will be very, very upset. Some users do not test their applications against
each new PHP version as it comes out, they just use whatever version their
hosting company provides them with.



It does not matter that the PHP developers cannot find someone to upgrade
the POSIX functions, it does not matter that the same functionality can be
provided with the PCRE functions, all the users will know is that their
scripts, some of which have been running for many years, will suddenly not
work and will need serious programming effort before they can run again.



You know how long it took for sites to upgrade from PHP 4 to 5 because of
the backward compatibility issues, so imagine even more resistance and a
slower uptake for PHP 6. The POSIX functions have been a core part of the
language since the early days of PHP, so to suddenly dump them for no good
reason will alienate and upset a large number of people. When I say "no good
reason" I mean from the user's point of view. The fact that it is taking
(has taken?) considerable effort to get the PCRE functions working with
Unicode for PHP 6, and no-one is prepared to spend similar effort on the
POSIX functions, may make it seem in the users eyes that the PHP developers
are either lazy or incompetent.



It does not matter that the PHP developers are unpaid volunteers - that is
no reason for shoddy workmanship. If they can't do the job properly they
shouldn't do it at all. BC breaks, especially on a range of functions which
have been a core part of the language for many, many years, do not go down
well with the users, and remember that it is the incredibly large number of
people who use PHP, not the efforts of the developers, that has made it such
a popular language. So annoying large numbers of users will create a PR
disaster.



If the PCRE functions have been made to work with Unicode, and each of the
POSIX functions has a PCRE equivalent, then surely an intelligent move would
be to convert all the POSIX functions into simple wrappers for their PCRE
equivalents. So instead of spending huge amounts of effort in making the
POSIX functions work with Unicode you simply cut out the code behind each
POSIX function and replace it to a call to the relevant PCRE function.



This should only require a relatively small amount of developer effort which
should be balanced against the huge amount that would otherwise be required
in userland. If the PHP developers are not prepared to undertake this small
amount of effort then they should be prepared for considerable amounts of
fallout from lots of unhappy users.



I would strongly suggest that a start be made on this as soon as possible so
that the changeover to PCRE wrappers can be fully tested and debugged before
PHP 6 goes live. This will make the changeover from POSIX to PCRE totally
transparent, and will be greatly appreciated in userland.


--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org



--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalentPCRE functions

The same can be said about the removal of magic_quotes(), it will break
A LOT of old scripts.
I am in the same boat, I did not keep up to date with the PHP developer
plans and just found out about ereg when I installed PHP 5.3.

I think it was handled properly by displaying warning messages before
actually removing it. It will give people enough time to update their
scripts or weed out the old and insecure scripts.

Yes, it will create some headache but, AFAIK, it is for the better.

--
John
Intelligent Life
http://xkcd.com/638/

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalent PCRE functions

"It is for the better"? How can you justify that? It is a problem that will
cause a lot of headaches for a lot of users, yet the solution which I have
proposed will remove that problem with only very little effort, yet still
leave only one regex engine which has to be supported in PHP 6.

You have to balance out the small bit of effort required in implementing
this solution against the huge amount of effort required in changing
thousands, if not millions of scripts.

For the PHP developers to say "we can't be bothered to update the POSIX
functions to deal with unicode, so we've decided to drop them from PHP
entirely even though it will break lots of scripts" will not go down well in
userland.


--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org

"John Black" wrote in message
news:4AF70120.1040209@network-technologies.org...
> The same can be said about the removal of magic_quotes(), it will break A
> LOT of old scripts.
> I am in the same boat, I did not keep up to date with the PHP developer
> plans and just found out about ereg when I installed PHP 5.3.
>
> I think it was handled properly by displaying warning messages before
> actually removing it. It will give people enough time to update their
> scripts or weed out the old and insecure scripts.
>
> Yes, it will create some headache but, AFAIK, it is for the better.
>
> --
> John
> Intelligent Life
> http://xkcd.com/638/



--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Tony Marston
wrote:
> "It is for the better"? How can you justify that? It is a problem that will
> cause a lot of headaches for a lot of users, yet the solution which I have
> proposed will remove that problem with only very little effort, yet still
> leave only one regex engine which has to be supported in PHP 6.
>
> You have to balance out the small bit of effort required in implementing
> this solution against the huge amount of effort required in changing
> thousands, if not millions of scripts.
>
> For the PHP developers to say "we can't be bothered to update the POSIX
> functions to deal with unicode, so we've decided to drop them from PHP
> entirely even though it will break lots of scripts" will not go down well in
> userland.
>
>
> --
> Tony Marston
> http://www.tonymarston.net
> http://www.radicore.org
>
> "John Black" wrote in message
> news:4AF70120.1040209@network-technologies.org...
>> The same can be said about the removal of magic_quotes(), it will break A
>> LOT of old scripts.
>> I am in the same boat, I did not keep up to date with the PHP developer
>> plans and just found out about ereg when I installed PHP 5.3.
>>
>> I think it was handled properly by displaying warning messages before
>> actually removing it. It will give people enough time to update their
>> scripts or weed out the old and insecure scripts.
>>
>> Yes, it will create some headache but, AFAIK, it is for the better.
>>
>> --
>> John
>> Intelligent Life
>> http://xkcd.com/638/
>
>
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

The plan, as far as I am aware, is to move POSIX regular expressions
into PECL as of PHP6. If you can fix your scripts by simply running
"pecl install ereg" what's all the hee-hawing about?

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalent PCRE functions

That's an amateur fudge, not a professional fix. Besides, what happens if
your hosting company won't let you install PECL extensions?

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org

"Eddie Drapkin" wrote in message
news:68de37340911081209p45577d46r70a3c194f1079510@mail.gmail .com...
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Tony Marston
> wrote:
>> "It is for the better"? How can you justify that? It is a problem that
>> will
>> cause a lot of headaches for a lot of users, yet the solution which I
>> have
>> proposed will remove that problem with only very little effort, yet still
>> leave only one regex engine which has to be supported in PHP 6.
>>
>> You have to balance out the small bit of effort required in implementing
>> this solution against the huge amount of effort required in changing
>> thousands, if not millions of scripts.
>>
>> For the PHP developers to say "we can't be bothered to update the POSIX
>> functions to deal with unicode, so we've decided to drop them from PHP
>> entirely even though it will break lots of scripts" will not go down well
>> in
>> userland.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tony Marston
>> http://www.tonymarston.net
>> http://www.radicore.org
>>
>> "John Black" wrote in message
>> news:4AF70120.1040209@network-technologies.org...
>>> The same can be said about the removal of magic_quotes(), it will break
>>> A
>>> LOT of old scripts.
>>> I am in the same boat, I did not keep up to date with the PHP developer
>>> plans and just found out about ereg when I installed PHP 5.3.
>>>
>>> I think it was handled properly by displaying warning messages before
>>> actually removing it. It will give people enough time to update their
>>> scripts or weed out the old and insecure scripts.
>>>
>>> Yes, it will create some headache but, AFAIK, it is for the better.
>>>
>>> --
>>> John
>>> Intelligent Life
>>> http://xkcd.com/638/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
>>
>
> The plan, as far as I am aware, is to move POSIX regular expressions
> into PECL as of PHP6. If you can fix your scripts by simply running
> "pecl install ereg" what's all the hee-hawing about?



--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Tony Marston
wrote:
> That's an amateur fudge, not a professional fix. Besides, what happens if
> your hosting company won't let you install PECL extensions?
>
> --
> Tony Marston
> http://www.tonymarston.net
> http://www.radicore.org
>
> "Eddie Drapkin" wrote in message
> news:68de37340911081209p45577d46r70a3c194f1079510@mail.gmail .com...
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Tony Marston
>> wrote:
>>> "It is for the better"? How can you justify that? It is a problem that
>>> will
>>> cause a lot of headaches for a lot of users, yet the solution which I
>>> have
>>> proposed will remove that problem with only very little effort, yet sti=
ll
>>> leave only one regex engine which has to be supported in PHP 6.
>>>
>>> You have to balance out the small bit of effort required in implementin=
g
>>> this solution against the huge amount of effort required in changing
>>> thousands, if not millions of scripts.
>>>
>>> For the PHP developers to say "we can't be bothered to update the POSIX
>>> functions to deal with unicode, so we've decided to drop them from PHP
>>> entirely even though it will break lots of scripts" will not go down we=
ll
>>> in
>>> userland.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tony Marston
>>> http://www.tonymarston.net
>>> http://www.radicore.org
>>>
>>> "John Black" wrote in message
>>> news:4AF70120.1040209@network-technologies.org...
>>>> The same can be said about the removal of magic_quotes(), it will brea=
k
>>>> A
>>>> LOT of old scripts.
>>>> I am in the same boat, I did not keep up to date with the PHP develope=
r
>>>> plans and just found out about ereg when I installed PHP 5.3.
>>>>
>>>> I think it was handled properly by displaying warning messages before
>>>> actually removing it. It will give people enough time to update their
>>>> scripts or weed out the old and insecure scripts.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it will create some headache but, AFAIK, it is for the better.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> John
>>>> Intelligent Life
>>>> http://xkcd.com/638/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The plan, as far as I am aware, is to move POSIX regular expressions
>> into PECL as of PHP6.  If you can fix your scripts by simply runnin=
g
>> "pecl install ereg" what's all the hee-hawing about?
>
>
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

Then you've got several options:
1) Don't upgrade PHP.
2) Pick a different hosting provider.
3) Fix your scripts.

You talk about a "professional" fix. The right fix is to remove the
depracated elements from your scripts before upgrading PHP, which
realistically shouldn't be that big of a deal for the vast majority of
expressions. Rather than accept the change and just fix your scripts,
you propose a problem that breaks a lot of other things and introduces
way more problems than it solves.

You're not the first person to post this exact same tantrum on this
list and the response has always been: fix your scripts or don't
upgrade. Seeing as PHP 6 is a long ways away you've got plenty of
time to fix your scripts and it's not like this is being sprung
overnight, so do the real professional thing and upgrade your scripts,
if you want to upgrade (when 6 is released). Breaking BC happens.

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalent PCRE functions

"Eddie Drapkin" wrote in message
news:68de37340911081330v799803f3he6ed60ecc6e67bdb@mail.gmail .com...
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Tony Marston
wrote:
> That's an amateur fudge, not a professional fix. Besides, what happens if
> your hosting company won't let you install PECL extensions?
>
> --
> Tony Marston
> http://www.tonymarston.net
> http://www.radicore.org
>
> "Eddie Drapkin" wrote in message
> news:68de37340911081209p45577d46r70a3c194f1079510@mail.gmail .com...
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Tony Marston
>> wrote:
>>> "It is for the better"? How can you justify that? It is a problem that
>>> will
>>> cause a lot of headaches for a lot of users, yet the solution which I
>>> have
>>> proposed will remove that problem with only very little effort, yet
>>> still
>>> leave only one regex engine which has to be supported in PHP 6.
>>>
>>> You have to balance out the small bit of effort required in implementing
>>> this solution against the huge amount of effort required in changing
>>> thousands, if not millions of scripts.
>>>
>>> For the PHP developers to say "we can't be bothered to update the POSIX
>>> functions to deal with unicode, so we've decided to drop them from PHP
>>> entirely even though it will break lots of scripts" will not go down
>>> well
>>> in
>>> userland.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tony Marston
>>> http://www.tonymarston.net
>>> http://www.radicore.org
>>>
>>> "John Black" wrote in message
>>> news:4AF70120.1040209@network-technologies.org...
>>>> The same can be said about the removal of magic_quotes(), it will break
>>>> A
>>>> LOT of old scripts.
>>>> I am in the same boat, I did not keep up to date with the PHP developer
>>>> plans and just found out about ereg when I installed PHP 5.3.
>>>>
>>>> I think it was handled properly by displaying warning messages before
>>>> actually removing it. It will give people enough time to update their
>>>> scripts or weed out the old and insecure scripts.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it will create some headache but, AFAIK, it is for the better.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> John
>>>> Intelligent Life
>>>> http://xkcd.com/638/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The plan, as far as I am aware, is to move POSIX regular expressions
>> into PECL as of PHP6. If you can fix your scripts by simply running
>> "pecl install ereg" what's all the hee-hawing about?
>
>
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

> Then you've got several options:
> 1) Don't upgrade PHP.

Not an acceptable option.

> 2) Pick a different hosting provider.

Not an acceptable optional.

> 3) Fix your scripts.

The scripts aren't broken. It's PHP 6 that's going to be broken.

> You talk about a "professional" fix. The right fix is to remove the
> depracated elements

My whole argument is that they shouldn't have been deprecated in the first
place.

> from your scripts before upgrading PHP, which
> realistically shouldn't be that big of a deal for the vast majority of
> expressions.

It is going to be a VERY big deal for all hose users who suddenly finf that
their scripts won't run in PHP 6.

> Rather than accept the change and just fix your scripts,

It's not a change, it's a removal of core functions that have worked
flawlessly for years. Both the POSIX and the PCRE functions needed to be
updated to work with unicode, but the developers couldn't be bothered to
update both. The only reason that the POSIX have been deprecated is because
the PHP developers are either too lazy or too incompetent to provide a
proper fix.

> you propose a problem that breaks a lot of other things and introduces
> way more problems than it solves.

> You're not the first person to post this exact same tantrum on this
l> list and the response has always been: fix your scripts

The scripts aren't broken, it's PHP 6 that's broken.

> or don't upgrade.

Not an acceptable option.

> Seeing as PHP 6 is a long ways away you've got plenty of
> time to fix your scripts

Just as the PHP developers have plenty of time to do a proper job.

> and it's not like this is being sprung overnight,

To a lot of peope it will appear to be sprung overnight as the first time
they will know that the POSIX functions have been removed is when their
scripts don't work.

> so do the real professional thing

The professional thing would be to fix PHP 6 so that is doesn't break
existing scripts needlessly.

> and upgrade your scripts,
> if you want to upgrade (when 6 is released). Breaking BC happens.

There is a difference between breaking BC because of genuinely
insurmountable reasons, and breaking it because of pure laziness.

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org



--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalentPCRE functions

Tony Marston wrote:
> "Eddie Drapkin" wrote in message
> news:68de37340911081330v799803f3he6ed60ecc6e67bdb@mail.gmail .com...
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Tony Marston
> wrote:
>> That's an amateur fudge, not a professional fix. Besides, what happens if
>> your hosting company won't let you install PECL extensions?
>>
>> --
>> Tony Marston
>> http://www.tonymarston.net
>> http://www.radicore.org
>>
>> "Eddie Drapkin" wrote in message
>> news:68de37340911081209p45577d46r70a3c194f1079510@mail.gmail .com...
>>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Tony Marston
>>> wrote:
>>>> "It is for the better"? How can you justify that? It is a problem that
>>>> will
>>>> cause a lot of headaches for a lot of users, yet the solution which I
>>>> have
>>>> proposed will remove that problem with only very little effort, yet
>>>> still
>>>> leave only one regex engine which has to be supported in PHP 6.
>>>>
>>>> You have to balance out the small bit of effort required in implementing
>>>> this solution against the huge amount of effort required in changing
>>>> thousands, if not millions of scripts.
>>>>
>>>> For the PHP developers to say "we can't be bothered to update the POSIX
>>>> functions to deal with unicode, so we've decided to drop them from PHP
>>>> entirely even though it will break lots of scripts" will not go down
>>>> well
>>>> in
>>>> userland.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tony Marston
>>>> http://www.tonymarston.net
>>>> http://www.radicore.org
>>>>
>>>> "John Black" wrote in message
>>>> news:4AF70120.1040209@network-technologies.org...
>>>>> The same can be said about the removal of magic_quotes(), it will break
>>>>> A
>>>>> LOT of old scripts.
>>>>> I am in the same boat, I did not keep up to date with the PHP developer
>>>>> plans and just found out about ereg when I installed PHP 5.3.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it was handled properly by displaying warning messages before
>>>>> actually removing it. It will give people enough time to update their
>>>>> scripts or weed out the old and insecure scripts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it will create some headache but, AFAIK, it is for the better.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> John
>>>>> Intelligent Life
>>>>> http://xkcd.com/638/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
>>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The plan, as far as I am aware, is to move POSIX regular expressions
>>> into PECL as of PHP6. If you can fix your scripts by simply running
>>> "pecl install ereg" what's all the hee-hawing about?
>>
>>
>> --
>> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
>>
>
>> Then you've got several options:
>> 1) Don't upgrade PHP.
>
> Not an acceptable option.
>
>> 2) Pick a different hosting provider.
>
> Not an acceptable optional.
>
>> 3) Fix your scripts.
>
> The scripts aren't broken. It's PHP 6 that's going to be broken.

I think you're missing the point of a full version increase. This is not
a minor or micro version change... script breakage is *expected*. You
don't think PHP should support legacy cruft in the core forever do you?
If unicode support is slopped onto the current POSIX regex functions
won't that then make them non-POSIX? Food for thought. Also, why support
two libraries for which one is obviously inferior in speed and
functionality?

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalent PCRE functions

"Robert Cummings" wrote in message
news:4AF7549D.1060005@interjinn.com...
> Tony Marston wrote:
>> "Eddie Drapkin" wrote in message
>> news:68de37340911081330v799803f3he6ed60ecc6e67bdb@mail.gmail .com...
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Tony Marston
>> wrote:
>>> That's an amateur fudge, not a professional fix. Besides, what happens
>>> if
>>> your hosting company won't let you install PECL extensions?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tony Marston
>>> http://www.tonymarston.net
>>> http://www.radicore.org
>>>
>>> "Eddie Drapkin" wrote in message
>>> news:68de37340911081209p45577d46r70a3c194f1079510@mail.gmail .com...
>>>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Tony Marston
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "It is for the better"? How can you justify that? It is a problem that
>>>>> will
>>>>> cause a lot of headaches for a lot of users, yet the solution which I
>>>>> have
>>>>> proposed will remove that problem with only very little effort, yet
>>>>> still
>>>>> leave only one regex engine which has to be supported in PHP 6.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have to balance out the small bit of effort required in
>>>>> implementing
>>>>> this solution against the huge amount of effort required in changing
>>>>> thousands, if not millions of scripts.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the PHP developers to say "we can't be bothered to update the
>>>>> POSIX
>>>>> functions to deal with unicode, so we've decided to drop them from PHP
>>>>> entirely even though it will break lots of scripts" will not go down
>>>>> well
>>>>> in
>>>>> userland.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Tony Marston
>>>>> http://www.tonymarston.net
>>>>> http://www.radicore.org
>>>>>
>>>>> "John Black" wrote in message
>>>>> news:4AF70120.1040209@network-technologies.org...
>>>>>> The same can be said about the removal of magic_quotes(), it will
>>>>>> break
>>>>>> A
>>>>>> LOT of old scripts.
>>>>>> I am in the same boat, I did not keep up to date with the PHP
>>>>>> developer
>>>>>> plans and just found out about ereg when I installed PHP 5.3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it was handled properly by displaying warning messages before
>>>>>> actually removing it. It will give people enough time to update their
>>>>>> scripts or weed out the old and insecure scripts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it will create some headache but, AFAIK, it is for the better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> John
>>>>>> Intelligent Life
>>>>>> http://xkcd.com/638/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
>>>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The plan, as far as I am aware, is to move POSIX regular expressions
>>>> into PECL as of PHP6. If you can fix your scripts by simply running
>>>> "pecl install ereg" what's all the hee-hawing about?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> Then you've got several options:
>>> 1) Don't upgrade PHP.
>>
>> Not an acceptable option.
>>
>>> 2) Pick a different hosting provider.
>>
>> Not an acceptable optional.
>>
>>> 3) Fix your scripts.
>>
>> The scripts aren't broken. It's PHP 6 that's going to be broken.
>
> I think you're missing the point of a full version increase. This is not a
> minor or micro version change... script breakage is *expected*.

But breakage should be kept to an absolute minimum, and developer laziness
or incompetence is not an acceptable excuse.

> You don't think PHP should support legacy cruft in the core forever do
> you?

Widely use regex functions are not "legacy cruft". Besides, who decides what
is "cruft" and should be removed from the language?

> If unicode support is slopped onto the current POSIX regex functions won't
> that then make them non-POSIX? Food for thought. Also, why support two
> libraries for which one is obviously inferior in speed and functionality?

That is why I suggested that instead of dropping the POSIX functions
entirely and seriously annoying lots of users, that they should simply be
rewritten as wrappers for the PCRE functions. In that way all the calls to
ereg_* would still work, but all they would do is immediately call the
relevant preg_* function. The small amount of effort that tghis would take
would kill two birds with one stone:

(1) There would be only one regex engine to support, which would be PCRE.
(2) Lots of developers would be spared the hassle of modifying their code as
all the calls to POSIX functions would still work as expected because the
language would redirect to the PCRE function automatically.

I am not suggesting that the POSIX functions be rewritten to deal with
unicode as that would require a huge amount of effort, but by redirecting al
POSIX calls to the equivalent PCRE function would have the same effect for
far less effort.

The choice is simple - either a small amount of effort from a small number
of developers, or a large amount of effort from a large number of seriously
pissed-off users. Do the maths. It's not rocket science.

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org

> Cheers,
> Rob.
> --
> http://www.interjinn.com
> Application and Templating Framework for PHP



--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalentPCRE functions

Tony Marston wrote:
> "Robert Cummings" wrote in message
>>>> Then you've got several options:
>>>> 1) Don't upgrade PHP.
>>> Not an acceptable option.
>>>
>>>> 2) Pick a different hosting provider.
>>> Not an acceptable optional.
>>>
>>>> 3) Fix your scripts.
>>> The scripts aren't broken. It's PHP 6 that's going to be broken.
>> I think you're missing the point of a full version increase. This is not a
>> minor or micro version change... script breakage is *expected*.
>
> But breakage should be kept to an absolute minimum, and developer laziness
> or incompetence is not an acceptable excuse.

Not quite true... major version moves are an opportunity to make a break
for freedom. All there needs to be is an upgrade path... and that is
clearly in play right now with the warning indicating that POSIX regex
functions are being deprecated.

>> You don't think PHP should support legacy cruft in the core forever do
>> you?
>
> Widely use regex functions are not "legacy cruft". Besides, who decides what
> is "cruft" and should be removed from the language?

They most certainly are cruft... hence the reason they are being
removed. The people who decide what is, and is not, cruft are the very
same people who are writing the code. If you are not happy with this
then there's the age old saying in open source... "put up or shut up".

>> If unicode support is slopped onto the current POSIX regex functions won't
>> that then make them non-POSIX? Food for thought. Also, why support two
>> libraries for which one is obviously inferior in speed and functionality?
>
> That is why I suggested that instead of dropping the POSIX functions
> entirely and seriously annoying lots of users, that they should simply be
> rewritten as wrappers for the PCRE functions. In that way all the calls to
> ereg_* would still work, but all they would do is immediately call the
> relevant preg_* function. The small amount of effort that tghis would take
> would kill two birds with one stone:
>
> (1) There would be only one regex engine to support, which would be PCRE.
> (2) Lots of developers would be spared the hassle of modifying their code as
> all the calls to POSIX functions would still work as expected because the
> language would redirect to the PCRE function automatically.

This would probably be worse than removing the POSIX functions. POSIX
and PCRE I daresay are not completely compatible. At least when you
remove the POSIX functions then the problem space is well defined.
Suddenly having POSIX regex functions that are really wrappers around
PCRE functions may introduce subtle differences in output for the same
horde of users but without the same explicability.

> I am not suggesting that the POSIX functions be rewritten to deal with
> unicode as that would require a huge amount of effort, but by redirecting al
> POSIX calls to the equivalent PCRE function would have the same effect for
> far less effort.
>
> The choice is simple - either a small amount of effort from a small number
> of developers, or a large amount of effort from a large number of seriously
> pissed-off users. Do the maths. It's not rocket science.

This isn't a mathematical problem. It's a question of correctness. I
wasn't happy to hear POSIX regex functions were going either, but when I
heard the reasoning I did the best thing I could... I fixed my code to
prepare for the inevitable. There's no way I'd trust my code to "just
work" with POSIX functions redirected through PCRE and so I'd still need
to do the same legwork.

Wrapping the POSIX regex functions around PCRE will lead to more
problems than it solves IMHO.

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for

On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 06:30:37PM -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:

> Also, why support
> two libraries for which one is obviously inferior in speed and
> functionality?
>

Because Tony's Radicore framework has a bunch of ereg* calls in it. ;-}

Paul

--
Paul M. Foster

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers forequivalent PCRE functions

"Paul M Foster" wrote in message
news:20091109030235.GH3738@quillandmouse.com...
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 06:30:37PM -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
>> Also, why support
>> two libraries for which one is obviously inferior in speed and
>> functionality?
>>
>
> Because Tony's Radicore framework has a bunch of ereg* calls in it. ;-}

Just like a lot of other people's work.

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org

> Paul
>
> --
> Paul M. Foster



--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalent PCRE functions

"Robert Cummings" wrote in message
news:4AF76E1F.2050700@interjinn.com...
> Tony Marston wrote:
>> "Robert Cummings" wrote in message
>>>>> Then you've got several options:
>>>>> 1) Don't upgrade PHP.
>>>> Not an acceptable option.
>>>>
>>>>> 2) Pick a different hosting provider.
>>>> Not an acceptable optional.
>>>>
>>>>> 3) Fix your scripts.
>>>> The scripts aren't broken. It's PHP 6 that's going to be broken.
>>> I think you're missing the point of a full version increase. This is not
>>> a minor or micro version change... script breakage is *expected*.
>>
>> But breakage should be kept to an absolute minimum, and developer
>> laziness or incompetence is not an acceptable excuse.
>
> Not quite true... major version moves are an opportunity to make a break
> for freedom. All there needs to be is an upgrade path... and that is
> clearly in play right now with the warning indicating that POSIX regex
> functions are being deprecated.

But a lot of people won't see those warnings until they run 5.3.0 for the
first time. It is common practice, at least in all the other languages that
I have used, that is something is going to be removed that it is marked as
deprecated at the start of the previous release, not at the end. So marking
the POIX functions as deprecated should have happened in 5.0, not 5.3.

>>> You don't think PHP should support legacy cruft in the core forever do
>>> you?
>>
>> Widely use regex functions are not "legacy cruft". Besides, who decides
>> what is "cruft" and should be removed from the language?
>
> They most certainly are cruft.

That is just your opinion. Other people think that PHP should be rewritten
so that it appears more like their favourite language. Among the suggestions
I have seen are:
- make all variables statically typed instead of dynamically typed.
- remove all procedural functions and make the language "pure" OO.

Who decides if they are right?

>.. hence the reason they are being removed. The people who decide what is,
>and is not, cruft are the very same people who are writing the code. If you
>are not happy with this then there's the age old saying in open source...
>"put up or shut up".

I can't because I don't program in C. So I shall do the nextbest thing -
complain at every opporunity.

>>> If unicode support is slopped onto the current POSIX regex functions
>>> won't that then make them non-POSIX? Food for thought. Also, why support
>>> two libraries for which one is obviously inferior in speed and
>>> functionality?
>>
>> That is why I suggested that instead of dropping the POSIX functions
>> entirely and seriously annoying lots of users, that they should simply be
>> rewritten as wrappers for the PCRE functions. In that way all the calls
>> to ereg_* would still work, but all they would do is immediately call the
>> relevant preg_* function. The small amount of effort that tghis would
>> take would kill two birds with one stone:
>>
>> (1) There would be only one regex engine to support, which would be PCRE.
>> (2) Lots of developers would be spared the hassle of modifying their code
>> as all the calls to POSIX functions would still work as expected because
>> the language would redirect to the PCRE function automatically.
>
> This would probably be worse than removing the POSIX functions.
> POSIX and PCRE I daresay are not completely compatible.

"probably" and "daresay" mean that you are just guessing. According to some
people who know what they are talking about there is a one-for-one
comparison between each POSIX and each PCRE function.

> At least when you remove the POSIX functions then the problem space is
> well defined.

And lots of sers will be pissed off because they won'tbe able to upgrade to
PHP 6 without major programmer intervention.

> Suddenly having POSIX regex functions that are really wrappers around PCRE
> functions may introduce subtle differences in output for the same horde of
> users but without the same explicability.

"may introduce"? There you go, guessng again. Can you point out *any* POSIX
function that cannot be converted into PCRE?

>> I am not suggesting that the POSIX functions be rewritten to deal with
>> unicode as that would require a huge amount of effort, but by redirecting
>> al POSIX calls to the equivalent PCRE function would have the same effect
>> for far less effort.
>>
>> The choice is simple - either a small amount of effort from a small
>> number of developers, or a large amount of effort from a large number of
>> seriously pissed-off users. Do the maths. It's not rocket science.
>
> This isn't a mathematical problem. It's a question of correctness.

Lot's of PHP users, myself included, do not think that it is "correct" to
remove widely used functionality just beause the developers are too lazy to
do a proper job.

> I wasn't happy to hear POSIX regex functions were going either, but when I
> heard the reasoning I did the best thing I could... I fixed my code to
> prepare for the inevitable.

So you had to fix what wasn't broken just to circumvent a stupid decision by
the PHP developers.

> There's no way I'd trust my code to "just work" with POSIX functions
> redirected through PCRE and so I'd still need to do the same legwork.

So you wouldn't trust the PHP developers to write simple code which takes
each POSIX function and redirects it to a PCRE function? I have more faith
in their ability than I do yours.

> Wrapping the POSIX regex functions around PCRE will lead to more problems
> than it solves IMHO.

IMHO your opinion does not carry much weight.

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org

> Cheers,
> Rob.
> --
> http://www.interjinn.com
> Application and Templating Framework for PHP



--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers forequivalent PCRE functions

--=-LHDRXoZGbnWnPs075Nje
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 00:23 +0000, Tony Marston wrote:

> developer laziness
> or incompetence is not an acceptable excuse.


Exactly, so fix your scripts!

I do wonder though, what hosting company you use that would just upgrade
to PHP6 without warning on you and 'break' your scripts, yet at the same
time would not allow you to install what you call an 'amateur fudge'. I
can't think of any hosting company that would care so little about their
customers.

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk



--=-LHDRXoZGbnWnPs075Nje--

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalent PCRE functions

"Ashley Sheridan" wrote in message
news:1257764339.1076.56.camel@localhost...
> On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 00:23 +0000, Tony Marston wrote:
>
>> developer laziness
>> or incompetence is not an acceptable excuse.
>
>
> Exactly, so fix your scripts!

But my scripts aren't broken! It's PHP 6 that is broken.

> I do wonder though, what hosting company you use that would just upgrade
> to PHP6 without warning on you and 'break' your scripts,

How many hosting companies write to all their account holders to ask
permission before upgrading PHP, not just from 4 to 5, but all the releases
in between? Very few of them, if any, in my experience.

> yet at the same
> time would not allow you to install what you call an 'amateur fudge'. I
> can't think of any hosting company that would care so little about their
> customers.

Some hosting companies won't allow you to use htaccess files, refuse to
install any optional extension, let alone one from the PECL or PEAR
repositories. Some of them won't give you more than one MySQL database.
Different companies provide different levels of service. The only thing that
the DO have in common is that they charge you for it.

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org

> Thanks,
> Ash
> http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
>
>
>



--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for

2009/11/9 Tony Marston :

> So you wouldn't trust the PHP developers to write simple code which takes
> each POSIX function and redirects it to a PCRE function? I have more faith
> in their ability than I do yours.

If it's as simple as you claim, why don't you mock-up your solution in
PHP, rather than C? You'll get taken more seriously if you have
working code that someone can write unit tests against.

If your solution doesn't get any traction with the core team, you'll
still be able to offer it to the community as a simple download, just
"include this at the top of your script to fix "ereg*() not found"
problems". That would be really useful to all those people whose cause
you are championing.

(BTW, the reference implementation for PHP is... PHP. There isn't an
ISO standard or anything here. How PHP6 behaves is correct, because
it's PHP6).

(BTW^2 - you're on the wrong list for this. If you want to influence
the guys who make the decisions you need to take this to
php-internals, where the heavyweights hang out).

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalentPCRE functions

--------------080507000401050003040404
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tony Marston wrote:
> How many hosting companies write to all their account holders to ask
> permission before upgrading PHP, not just from 4 to 5, but all the releases
> in between? Very few of them, if any, in my experience.
>
I've no idea what horrible hosting companies you've had experiences
with, however all of the companies I've used in the last few years have
had an option to move back and forth between PHP4 and PHP5 in the event
that certain scrips/frameworks/apps/whatever required one version over
the other. What makes you think these companies won't do the same thing
when they finally decide to add PHP6 to their servers? I doubt very
many reputable hosting companies would simply upgrade to the latest
flavor of PHP/Apache/MySQL/anything simply because it was released this
morning without doing ample internal testing; if you or your clients are
using one that does this - I'd advise you look elsewhere.

Whenever PHP6 reaches a stable release build, it will still be quite
some time before its offered as an option to any mainstream shared
hosting service - this should leave you ample time to adapt to incoming
changes. Failing that, you always have the option of purchasing your
own server or VPS from any number of hosts to configure as you see fit.
Or you can explain your moral outrage to potential clients detailing
your refusal to work because you disagree with a proposed change that
won't see the light of day for years to come; your call.

Incessant whining under the guise of expressing your own opinion isn't
going to make everything better. Sorry.

--------------080507000401050003040404--

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalent PCRE functions

"David Otton" wrote in message
news:193d27170911090331k7ecbe69cl1dd30651273e7c3d@mail.gmail .com...
> 2009/11/9 Tony Marston :
>
>> So you wouldn't trust the PHP developers to write simple code which takes
>> each POSIX function and redirects it to a PCRE function? I have more
>> faith
>> in their ability than I do yours.
>
> If it's as simple as you claim, why don't you mock-up your solution in
> PHP, rather than C?

Because I can't do that until I install PHP 6, but as I never play with beta
software waiting for it to go live will be too late.

> You'll get taken more seriously if you have
> working code that someone can write unit tests against.
>
> If your solution doesn't get any traction with the core team, you'll
> still be able to offer it to the community as a simple download, just
> "include this at the top of your script to fix "ereg*() not found"
> problems". That would be really useful to all those people whose cause
> you are championing.
>
> (BTW, the reference implementation for PHP is... PHP. There isn't an
> ISO standard or anything here. How PHP6 behaves is correct, because
> it's PHP6).
>
> (BTW^2 - you're on the wrong list for this. If you want to influence
> the guys who make the decisions you need to take this to
> php-internals, where the heavyweights hang out).

I have tried subscribing to the internals list, but none of my postings ever
appears. I've tried looking at the PHP wiki, but I cannot see any method of
creating an RFC.

I have, however, created a request in php_compat in the PEAR system at
http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=16769

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org



--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers forequivalent PCRE functions

On 11/9/09 8:56 AM, Tony Marston wrote:

> I have tried subscribing to the internals list, but none of my postings ever
> appears.

That's unfortunate as you missed this thread:

http://marc.info/?t=125536258300001&r=1&w=2

Paul



--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for

2009/11/9 Tony Marston :

> Because I can't do that until I install PHP 6, but as I never play with beta
> software waiting for it to go live will be too late.

Not sure why not. If it's just the name collision, call them
alt_ereg*() until ereg*() goes away. In fact, it's much easier to
write unit tests against your new functions if the old functions are
still hanging around.

> I've tried looking at the PHP wiki, but I cannot see any method of
> creating an RFC.

Well, the RFCs are here, but you probably already found them:
http://wiki.php.net/rfc (register is in the bottom-right corner).

Can't help you with your php-internals problem, I'm afraid. Tried
emailing the list manager?

> I have, however, created a request in php_compat in the PEAR system at
> http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=16769

Fair enough. Good luck.

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalent PCRE functions

--=-FAfAnGuX2YB/2MDhdWfg
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 15:49 +0000, David Otton wrote:

> 2009/11/9 Tony Marston :
>
> > Because I can't do that until I install PHP 6, but as I never play with beta
> > software waiting for it to go live will be too late.
>
> Not sure why not. If it's just the name collision, call them
> alt_ereg*() until ereg*() goes away. In fact, it's much easier to
> write unit tests against your new functions if the old functions are
> still hanging around.
>
> > I've tried looking at the PHP wiki, but I cannot see any method of
> > creating an RFC.
>
> Well, the RFCs are here, but you probably already found them:
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc (register is in the bottom-right corner).
>
> Can't help you with your php-internals problem, I'm afraid. Tried
> emailing the list manager?
>
> > I have, however, created a request in php_compat in the PEAR system at
> > http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=16769
>
> Fair enough. Good luck.
>


And what about something like this as an internal wrapper:

if(!function_exists('ereg_*'))
{
function ereg_*()
{

}
}

And you should at least try to test the code you write for your clients
on PHP6 if that is where it is going to be hosted before servers are
upgraded, even if it's just to find out if it will break and give you
time to fix it. Hell, you could probably charge for that if the client
absolutely has to be on a PHP6 server, as something like that would fall
outside the scope of future maintenance, unless of course you wrote your
code in full knowledge of the change that would happen in PHP6.

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk



--=-FAfAnGuX2YB/2MDhdWfg--

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers forequivalent PCRE functions

At 12:23 AM +0000 11/9/09, Tony Marston wrote:
>Do the maths. It's not rocket science.
>
>Tony Marston

Damn, I was hoping for some rocket science. But traveling the update
route isn't rocket science either.

I can tell you from experience that everything changes. Nothing
remains static -- so, get used to it.

I've had entire languages stop overnight and all the developers had
to go on to other things -- not a good experience.

The deprecation of POSIX functions is minor as compared to other
things. Be happy that's all you have to be concerned about.

Cheers,

tedd

--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalentPCRE functions

Tony Marston wrote:
> "Robert Cummings" wrote in message
> news:4AF76E1F.2050700@interjinn.com...
>> Tony Marston wrote:
>>> "Robert Cummings" wrote in message
>>>>>> Then you've got several options:
>>>>>> 1) Don't upgrade PHP.
>>>>> Not an acceptable option.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Pick a different hosting provider.
>>>>> Not an acceptable optional.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) Fix your scripts.
>>>>> The scripts aren't broken. It's PHP 6 that's going to be broken.
>>>> I think you're missing the point of a full version increase. This is not
>>>> a minor or micro version change... script breakage is *expected*.
>>> But breakage should be kept to an absolute minimum, and developer
>>> laziness or incompetence is not an acceptable excuse.
>> Not quite true... major version moves are an opportunity to make a break
>> for freedom. All there needs to be is an upgrade path... and that is
>> clearly in play right now with the warning indicating that POSIX regex
>> functions are being deprecated.
>
> But a lot of people won't see those warnings until they run 5.3.0 for the
> first time. It is common practice, at least in all the other languages that
> I have used, that is something is going to be removed that it is marked as
> deprecated at the start of the previous release, not at the end. So marking
> the POIX functions as deprecated should have happened in 5.0, not 5.3.

This is PHP, it is not all the other languages you have used. That said,
it will probably be at leats a year before PHP6 even thinks about being
released.

>>>> You don't think PHP should support legacy cruft in the core forever do
>>>> you?
>>> Widely use regex functions are not "legacy cruft". Besides, who decides
>>> what is "cruft" and should be removed from the language?
>> They most certainly are cruft.
>
> That is just your opinion.

And the opposing opinion is your... all just opinions right?!

> Other people think that PHP should be rewritten
> so that it appears more like their favourite language. Among the suggestions
> I have seen are:
> - make all variables statically typed instead of dynamically typed.
> - remove all procedural functions and make the language "pure" OO.
>
> Who decides if they are right?

The PHP team... primarily those who contribute to the PHP cod itself.
Those people have earned the privilege of making final decisions.

>> .. hence the reason they are being removed. The people who decide what is,
>> and is not, cruft are the very same people who are writing the code. If you
>> are not happy with this then there's the age old saying in open source...
>> "put up or shut up".
>
> I can't because I don't program in C. So I shall do the nextbest thing -
> complain at every opporunity.

Then learn C... I see later in this email you whine and moan about
laziness... there is nothing stopping you from learning C but your own
laziness. If you lack the time to contribute... then perhaps you should
keep your mouth in check before calling the core developers lazy when
they probably have similar time constraints.

>>>> If unicode support is slopped onto the current POSIX regex functions
>>>> won't that then make them non-POSIX? Food for thought. Also, why support
>>>> two libraries for which one is obviously inferior in speed and
>>>> functionality?
>>> That is why I suggested that instead of dropping the POSIX functions
>>> entirely and seriously annoying lots of users, that they should simply be
>>> rewritten as wrappers for the PCRE functions. In that way all the calls
>>> to ereg_* would still work, but all they would do is immediately call the
>>> relevant preg_* function. The small amount of effort that tghis would
>>> take would kill two birds with one stone:
>>>
>>> (1) There would be only one regex engine to support, which would be PCRE.
>>> (2) Lots of developers would be spared the hassle of modifying their code
>>> as all the calls to POSIX functions would still work as expected because
>>> the language would redirect to the PCRE function automatically.
>> This would probably be worse than removing the POSIX functions.
>> POSIX and PCRE I daresay are not completely compatible.
>
> "probably" and "daresay" mean that you are just guessing. According to some
> people who know what they are talking about there is a one-for-one
> comparison between each POSIX and each PCRE function.

And you are certainly guessing also. The thing about the future is that
it hasn't happened yet and so one can only provide opinion to predict
the unfolding of events.

>> At least when you remove the POSIX functions then the problem space is
>> well defined.
>
> And lots of sers will be pissed off because they won'tbe able to upgrade to
> PHP 6 without major programmer intervention.

This is opinion.

>> Suddenly having POSIX regex functions that are really wrappers around PCRE
>> functions may introduce subtle differences in output for the same horde of
>> users but without the same explicability.
>
> "may introduce"? There you go, guessng again. Can you point out *any* POSIX
> function that cannot be converted into PCRE?

No... I leave it to you to prove the reverse since YOU want the PHP team
to provide the wrappers. Don't be lazy... do the legwork. Show that one
can fully replace the other.

>>> I am not suggesting that the POSIX functions be rewritten to deal with
>>> unicode as that would require a huge amount of effort, but by redirecting
>>> al POSIX calls to the equivalent PCRE function would have the same effect
>>> for far less effort.
>>>
>>> The choice is simple - either a small amount of effort from a small
>>> number of developers, or a large amount of effort from a large number of
>>> seriously pissed-off users. Do the maths. It's not rocket science.
>> This isn't a mathematical problem. It's a question of correctness.
>
> Lot's of PHP users, myself included, do not think that it is "correct" to
> remove widely used functionality just beause the developers are too lazy to
> do a proper job.

Lots... are we talking 5? 10? 100? 1000? What the hell does lots mean?
Can you provide convincing statistics indicating this "group think"?
(aka "group OPINION").

>> I wasn't happy to hear POSIX regex functions were going either, but when I
>> heard the reasoning I did the best thing I could... I fixed my code to
>> prepare for the inevitable.
>
> So you had to fix what wasn't broken just to circumvent a stupid decision by
> the PHP developers.

No, I had to make my code future proof because a decision was made and
warning was given well in advance of it's coming. I decided not to be
lazy and procrastinate.

>> There's no way I'd trust my code to "just work" with POSIX functions
>> redirected through PCRE and so I'd still need to do the same legwork.
>
> So you wouldn't trust the PHP developers to write simple code which takes
> each POSIX function and redirects it to a PCRE function? I have more faith
> in their ability than I do yours.

I have great faith in the PHP developers... which is why I have trusted
their opinion to remove the POSIX functions. Obviously, YOU do not have
the same faith.

>> Wrapping the POSIX regex functions around PCRE will lead to more problems
>> than it solves IMHO.
>
> IMHO your opinion does not carry much weight.

IMHO you're a juvenile troll that cries when he doesn't get his way.
Rather than put forth compelling evidence for why POSIX should be kept
or wrapped, you merely provide character attacks (calling the PHP
developers lazy) and your own lightweight and questionable opinions.

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalentPCRE functions

Tony Marston wrote:
> "Ashley Sheridan" wrote in message
> news:1257764339.1076.56.camel@localhost...
>> On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 00:23 +0000, Tony Marston wrote:
>>
>>> developer laziness
>>> or incompetence is not an acceptable excuse.
>>
>> Exactly, so fix your scripts!
>
> But my scripts aren't broken! It's PHP 6 that is broken.

Actually when PHP 6 comes out... it will be your scripts that are
broken. The language doesn't adapt to you for every version change. YOU
adapt to the language, otherwise YOUR scripts ARE broken.

> Some hosting companies won't allow you to use htaccess files, refuse to
> install any optional extension, let alone one from the PECL or PEAR
> repositories. Some of them won't give you more than one MySQL database.
> Different companies provide different levels of service. The only thing that
> the DO have in common is that they charge you for it.

Then switch hosting company. Or pony up the extra $5 or $10 per month or
so for a VPS that gives you root access and all the configurability you
could want. Lack of choice is NOT the fault of PHP.

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalentPCRE functions

Tony Marston wrote:
> "David Otton" wrote in message
> news:193d27170911090331k7ecbe69cl1dd30651273e7c3d@mail.gmail .com...
>> 2009/11/9 Tony Marston :
>>
>>> So you wouldn't trust the PHP developers to write simple code which takes
>>> each POSIX function and redirects it to a PCRE function? I have more
>>> faith
>>> in their ability than I do yours.
>> If it's as simple as you claim, why don't you mock-up your solution in
>> PHP, rather than C?
>
> Because I can't do that until I install PHP 6, but as I never play with beta
> software waiting for it to go live will be too late.

Don't be lazy Tony, install beta software... make sure your software is
ready before the beta becomes release software. This is part of being
"professional".

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: Convert deprecated POSIX functions into wrappers for equivalentPCRE functions

Paul Fierro wrote:
> On 11/9/09 8:56 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
>
>> I have tried subscribing to the internals list, but none of my postings ever
>> appears.
>
> That's unfortunate as you missed this thread:
>
> http://marc.info/?t=125536258300001&r=1&w=2

I didn't :)

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php