| Never log deprecation warnings [message #179031] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 09:51  |
Jonathan Stein
Messages: 43
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Hi.
Does anyone have an idea about how to never log deprecation warnings -
even if the code alters error_reporting?
I'm thinking about setting "php_flag log_errors off" in .htaccess to
block all error logging, but I would prefer to log real errors.
(And no, avoiding deprecated functions is not an option in this case).
Regards
Jonathan
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179033 is a reply to message #179031] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 13:10  |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/6/2012 5:51 AM, Jonathan Stein wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Does anyone have an idea about how to never log deprecation warnings -
> even if the code alters error_reporting?
>
> I'm thinking about setting "php_flag log_errors off" in .htaccess to
> block all error logging, but I would prefer to log real errors.
>
> (And no, avoiding deprecated functions is not an option in this case).
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
Get rid of the code causing the deprecated warnings.
They're there for a reason. If you ignore them now, your code will
break when you (or your host) upgrades PHP and the functions you're
using are no longer supported.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179034 is a reply to message #179033] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 13:42 |
Jonathan Stein
Messages: 43
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 06-09-2012 15:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> (And no, avoiding deprecated functions is not an option in this case).
>
> Get rid of the code causing the deprecated warnings.
I think you missed something...
Regards
Jonathan
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179035 is a reply to message #179031] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 13:48 |
Thomas 'PointedEars'
Messages: 701
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jonathan Stein wrote:
> Does anyone have an idea about how to never log deprecation warnings -
> even if the code alters error_reporting?
>
> I'm thinking about setting "php_flag log_errors off" in .htaccess to
> block all error logging, but I would prefer to log real errors.
You could set `error_reporting' to something that includes `& ~DEPRECATED'
(and code that alters error-reporting in more than one place, except for
debugging purposes, is potentially bad code anyway), but …
> (And no, avoiding deprecated functions is not an option in this case).
… I strongly suggest you fix the code instead. Why is that IYHO not an
option in this case?
If you do not fix deprecated code now, it will be a real error in one of the
next PHP versions. Upgrading PHP to that version will cause your
application to break. Not upgrading to it will cause your application to be
inherently insecure as you would not get all the security fixes. You do not
want any of that to happen.
PointedEars
--
Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are
positively harmful for cross-browser scripting.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300dec7(at)news(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> (2004)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179036 is a reply to message #179034] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 15:26 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/6/2012 9:42 AM, Jonathan Stein wrote:
> On 06-09-2012 15:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>>> (And no, avoiding deprecated functions is not an option in this case).
>>
>> Get rid of the code causing the deprecated warnings.
>
> I think you missed something...
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
No, I didn't miss anything. You are missing the point. The warnings
are there for a reason. You will HAVE TO CHANGE THE CODE SOONER OR LATER!
Better to change it now when your site isn't down because of an update
to PHP. Ignoring the problem WILL NOT MAKE IT GO AWAY.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179037 is a reply to message #179035] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 16:04 |
J.O. Aho
Messages: 194
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 06/09/12 15:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Jonathan Stein wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have an idea about how to never log deprecation warnings -
>> even if the code alters error_reporting?
>>
>> I'm thinking about setting "php_flag log_errors off" in .htaccess to
>> block all error logging, but I would prefer to log real errors.
>
> You could set `error_reporting' to something that includes `& ~DEPRECATED'
> (and code that alters error-reporting in more than one place, except for
> debugging purposes, is potentially bad code anyway), but …
>
>> (And no, avoiding deprecated functions is not an option in this case).
>
> … I strongly suggest you fix the code instead. Why is that IYHO not an
> option in this case?
>
> If you do not fix deprecated code now, it will be a real error in one of the
> next PHP versions. Upgrading PHP to that version will cause your
> application to break. Not upgrading to it will cause your application to be
> inherently insecure as you would not get all the security fixes. You do not
> want any of that to happen.
Of course they could try to stick to the current version of PHP on the
server, but of course then they will be stuck with all the security
issues which may be in the PHP (we seen a number of such this year) or
try to bakcport fixes to the PHP source code and build it.
Of course the absolute simplest thing to do is to fix the PHP scripts,
have to agree with Thomas and Jerry on this one.
--
//Aho
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179038 is a reply to message #179037] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 16:33 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J.O. Aho wrote:
> On 06/09/12 15:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Jonathan Stein wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone have an idea about how to never log deprecation warnings -
>>> even if the code alters error_reporting?
>>>
>>> I'm thinking about setting "php_flag log_errors off" in .htaccess to
>>> block all error logging, but I would prefer to log real errors.
>>
>> You could set `error_reporting' to something that includes `&
>> ~DEPRECATED'
>> (and code that alters error-reporting in more than one place, except for
>> debugging purposes, is potentially bad code anyway), but …
>>
>>> (And no, avoiding deprecated functions is not an option in this case).
>>
>> … I strongly suggest you fix the code instead. Why is that IYHO not an
>> option in this case?
>>
>> If you do not fix deprecated code now, it will be a real error in one
>> of the
>> next PHP versions. Upgrading PHP to that version will cause your
>> application to break. Not upgrading to it will cause your application
>> to be
>> inherently insecure as you would not get all the security fixes. You
>> do not
>> want any of that to happen.
>
> Of course they could try to stick to the current version of PHP on the
> server, but of course then they will be stuck with all the security
> issues which may be in the PHP (we seen a number of such this year) or
> try to bakcport fixes to the PHP source code and build it.
>
> Of course the absolute simplest thing to do is to fix the PHP scripts,
> have to agree with Thomas and Jerry on this one.
>
yeah. One day I'll have to plough through mine and replace all the
if ($_POST[....) with
if (isset($_POST[...) && $_POST[...))
and lower the error logs by a couple of hundred bytes a day.
But meanwhile I think I'll make myself a coffee and a cheese sandwich.
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179039 is a reply to message #179038] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 17:37 |
Scott Johnson
Messages: 196
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/6/2012 9:33 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> J.O. Aho wrote:
>> On 06/09/12 15:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Jonathan Stein wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does anyone have an idea about how to never log deprecation warnings -
>>>> even if the code alters error_reporting?
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking about setting "php_flag log_errors off" in .htaccess to
>>>> block all error logging, but I would prefer to log real errors.
>>>
>>> You could set `error_reporting' to something that includes `&
>>> ~DEPRECATED'
>>> (and code that alters error-reporting in more than one place, except for
>>> debugging purposes, is potentially bad code anyway), but …
>>>
>>>> (And no, avoiding deprecated functions is not an option in this case).
>>>
>>> … I strongly suggest you fix the code instead. Why is that IYHO not an
>>> option in this case?
>>>
>>> If you do not fix deprecated code now, it will be a real error in one
>>> of the
>>> next PHP versions. Upgrading PHP to that version will cause your
>>> application to break. Not upgrading to it will cause your
>>> application to be
>>> inherently insecure as you would not get all the security fixes. You
>>> do not
>>> want any of that to happen.
>>
>> Of course they could try to stick to the current version of PHP on the
>> server, but of course then they will be stuck with all the security
>> issues which may be in the PHP (we seen a number of such this year) or
>> try to bakcport fixes to the PHP source code and build it.
>>
>> Of course the absolute simplest thing to do is to fix the PHP scripts,
>> have to agree with Thomas and Jerry on this one.
>>
> yeah. One day I'll have to plough through mine and replace all the
>
> if ($_POST[....) with
> if (isset($_POST[...) && $_POST[...))
>
> and lower the error logs by a couple of hundred bytes a day.
>
> But meanwhile I think I'll make myself a coffee and a cheese sandwich.
>
>
2 sugars and cream for me please.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179040 is a reply to message #179039] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 17:49 |
Thomas 'PointedEars'
Messages: 701
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scott Johnson wrote:
> On 9/6/2012 9:33 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> J.O. Aho wrote:
>>> Of course the absolute simplest thing to do is to fix the PHP scripts,
>>> have to agree with Thomas and Jerry on this one.
>>
>> yeah. One day I'll have to plough through mine and replace all the
>>
>> if ($_POST[....) with
>> if (isset($_POST[...) && $_POST[...))
>>
>> and lower the error logs by a couple of hundred bytes a day.
>>
>> But meanwhile I think I'll make myself a coffee and a cheese sandwich.
>
> 2 sugars and cream for me please.
JFTR: Those are _not_ the kind of warnings the OP was talking about. The
ones he means are caused by calls such as split(…), and are probably much
larger in number. See for example <http://php.net/split> (DEPRECATED in
favor of <http://php.net/preg_split>).
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7(at)news(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179041 is a reply to message #179040] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 17:56 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Scott Johnson wrote:
>
>> On 9/6/2012 9:33 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>> Of course the absolute simplest thing to do is to fix the PHP scripts,
>>>> have to agree with Thomas and Jerry on this one.
>>> yeah. One day I'll have to plough through mine and replace all the
>>>
>>> if ($_POST[....) with
>>> if (isset($_POST[...) && $_POST[...))
>>>
>>> and lower the error logs by a couple of hundred bytes a day.
>>>
>>> But meanwhile I think I'll make myself a coffee and a cheese sandwich.
>> 2 sugars and cream for me please.
>
> JFTR: Those are _not_ the kind of warnings the OP was talking about. The
> ones he means are caused by calls such as split(…), and are probably much
> larger in number. See for example <http://php.net/split> (DEPRECATED in
> favor of <http://php.net/preg_split>).
>
>
Thats when you write your OWN split() that calls preg_split()
> PointedEars
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179042 is a reply to message #179038] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 18:41 |
J.O. Aho
Messages: 194
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 06/09/12 18:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> yeah. One day I'll have to plough through mine and replace all the
>
> if ($_POST[....) with
> if (isset($_POST[...) && $_POST[...))
>
> and lower the error logs by a couple of hundred bytes a day.
>
> But meanwhile I think I'll make myself a coffee and a cheese sandwich.
That's why there is sed, you get your coffee break and get it fixed :D
--
//Aho
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179043 is a reply to message #179042] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 18:52 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J.O. Aho wrote:
> On 06/09/12 18:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> yeah. One day I'll have to plough through mine and replace all the
>>
>> if ($_POST[....) with
>> if (isset($_POST[...) && $_POST[...))
>>
>> and lower the error logs by a couple of hundred bytes a day.
>>
>> But meanwhile I think I'll make myself a coffee and a cheese sandwich.
>
> That's why there is sed, you get your coffee break and get it fixed :D
>
Having first spent two days trying to work out what the exact syntax of
the regexp needed to be, and then a week following correcting all the
places it replaced something that didnt want to be replaced.
WRWLWA
(When running well, leave well alone)
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179044 is a reply to message #179041] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 19:53 |
Thomas 'PointedEars'
Messages: 701
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Scott Johnson wrote:
>>> On 9/6/2012 9:33 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>> > Of course the absolute simplest thing to do is to fix the PHP scripts,
>>>> > have to agree with Thomas and Jerry on this one.
>>>> yeah. One day I'll have to plough through mine and replace all the
>>>>
>>>> if ($_POST[....) with
>>>> if (isset($_POST[...) && $_POST[...))
>>>>
>>>> and lower the error logs by a couple of hundred bytes a day.
>>>>
>>>> But meanwhile I think I'll make myself a coffee and a cheese sandwich.
>>> 2 sugars and cream for me please.
>>
>> JFTR: Those are _not_ the kind of warnings the OP was talking about. The
>> ones he means are caused by calls such as split(…), and are probably much
>> larger in number. See for example <http://php.net/split> (DEPRECATED in
>> favor of <http://php.net/preg_split>).
>
> Thats when you write your OWN split() that calls preg_split()
Surprise me.
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179045 is a reply to message #179031] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 19:59 |
Denis McMahon
Messages: 634
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:51:56 +0200, Jonathan Stein wrote:
> And no, avoiding deprecated functions is not an option in this case.
At some future point, either you're going to be running on a horribly
outdated, unsupported, unpatched php with script kiddies worldwide
exploiting your vulnerabilities (if you control your php version), or the
website is going to break when whoever controls your php version (ie the
hosting provider) upgrades to a version that no longer has the functions
that you're currently getting deprecation warnings for (if you don't
control the php version).
Personally I'd consider both of these futures sub optimal, and that
fixing the code to use whatever functions replace the deprecated ones was
better.
Better to fix it now in a controlled manner before the functions are
removed completely, rather than later in a panic because the website is
down.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179046 is a reply to message #179045] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 22:34 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Denis McMahon wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:51:56 +0200, Jonathan Stein wrote:
>
>> And no, avoiding deprecated functions is not an option in this case.
>
> At some future point, either you're going to be running on a horribly
> outdated, unsupported, unpatched php with script kiddies worldwide
> exploiting your vulnerabilities (if you control your php version), or the
> website is going to break when whoever controls your php version (ie the
> hosting provider) upgrades to a version that no longer has the functions
> that you're currently getting deprecation warnings for (if you don't
> control the php version).
>
> Personally I'd consider both of these futures sub optimal, and that
> fixing the code to use whatever functions replace the deprecated ones was
> better.
>
> Better to fix it now in a controlled manner before the functions are
> removed completely, rather than later in a panic because the website is
> down.
>
> Rgds
>
> Denis McMahon
This is of course how one set of developers keep another set in work
Keep on upgrading and forcing source code changes on the bastards!
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179047 is a reply to message #179031] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 22:53 |
Jonathan Stein
Messages: 43
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 06-09-2012 11:51, Jonathan Stein wrote:
> (And no, avoiding deprecated functions is not an option in this case).
Thank you all for your replies, but when I wrote that avoiding
deprecated functions is not an option, I actually meant it. ;-)
This is some old code, that we keep on-line for historic reasons as long
as we can do it with a minimum of effort.
When we can no longer do it safely, the sites may rest in peace.
Regards
Jonathan
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179048 is a reply to message #179047] |
Fri, 07 September 2012 00:09 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/6/2012 6:53 PM, Jonathan Stein wrote:
> On 06-09-2012 11:51, Jonathan Stein wrote:
>
>> (And no, avoiding deprecated functions is not an option in this case).
>
> Thank you all for your replies, but when I wrote that avoiding
> deprecated functions is not an option, I actually meant it. ;-)
>
> This is some old code, that we keep on-line for historic reasons as long
> as we can do it with a minimum of effort.
> When we can no longer do it safely, the sites may rest in peace.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
Then your site WILL BREAK. It's only a matter of time.
There is NO EXCUSE for rewriting bad code now, when it is not a matter
of "life and death" - which it will be later.
It's your choice. Pay a little now, or pay A LOT later.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179049 is a reply to message #179047] |
Fri, 07 September 2012 01:41 |
Scott Johnson
Messages: 196
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/6/2012 3:53 PM, Jonathan Stein wrote:
> On 06-09-2012 11:51, Jonathan Stein wrote:
>
>> (And no, avoiding deprecated functions is not an option in this case).
>
> Thank you all for your replies, but when I wrote that avoiding
> deprecated functions is not an option, I actually meant it. ;-)
>
> This is some old code, that we keep on-line for historic reasons as long
> as we can do it with a minimum of effort.
> When we can no longer do it safely, the sites may rest in peace.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
I personally do not have an answer however beyond what has already been
given.
Can I ask why if the site is so not important and only kept for
historical purposes, why the logging the deprecated functions is an
issue. I am just curious.
Scotty
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179070 is a reply to message #179049] |
Mon, 10 September 2012 10:43 |
Jonathan Stein
Messages: 43
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Den 07-09-2012 03:41, Scott Johnson skrev:
> Can I ask why if the site is so not important and only kept for
> historical purposes, why the logging the deprecated functions is an
> issue. I am just curious.
They take up space (even though the sites are not used much by real
users, search engines keep indexing them).
- And the warnings are just noise in the logs when we know that we're
not going to react on them.
Regards
Jonathan
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179071 is a reply to message #179070] |
Mon, 10 September 2012 11:43 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/10/2012 6:43 AM, Jonathan Stein wrote:
> Den 07-09-2012 03:41, Scott Johnson skrev:
>
>> Can I ask why if the site is so not important and only kept for
>> historical purposes, why the logging the deprecated functions is an
>> issue. I am just curious.
>
> They take up space (even though the sites are not used much by real
> users, search engines keep indexing them).
>
> - And the warnings are just noise in the logs when we know that we're
> not going to react on them.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
And your site WILL BREAK. To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
If the site isn't that important, then just why not just take it down
now instead of waiting for it to crash hard?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179074 is a reply to message #179071] |
Tue, 11 September 2012 08:38 |
Jonathan Stein
Messages: 43
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which new
projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old sites?
> If the site isn't that important, then just why not just take it down
> now instead of waiting for it to crash hard?
Why take something down when it works and people are using it?
(And deprecated functions doesn't just vanish - we know when we upgrade
to a new PHP version).
Regards
Jonathan
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179075 is a reply to message #179074] |
Tue, 11 September 2012 12:34 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/11/2012 4:38 AM, Jonathan Stein wrote:
> On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>
> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which new
> projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old sites?
>
Whichever ones are not as important as one that's being used.
>> If the site isn't that important, then just why not just take it down
>> now instead of waiting for it to crash hard?
>
> Why take something down when it works and people are using it?
>
> (And deprecated functions doesn't just vanish - we know when we upgrade
> to a new PHP version).
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
Because sooner or later you will have to upgrade or run with a no longer
supported version of PHP - which includes security fixes, leaving your
site open to all kinds of problems.
And when you do upgrade, your site will break and your site will be done
- creating a mad frenzy trying to make a lot of quick fixes to get it
going again. And that just adds more bugs.
The deprecated warnings are there for a reason - to give you time to fix
problems before they occur. To ignore them is the ultimate in stupidity.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179077 is a reply to message #179075] |
Tue, 11 September 2012 13:06 |
Jonathan Stein
Messages: 43
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 11-09-2012 14:34, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>>
>> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which new
>> projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old sites?
>
> Whichever ones are not as important as one that's being used.
In my opinion, all our newer projects are more important, so please give
me your opinion. You must have considered this, since you can conclude
that "To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity".
>>> If the site isn't that important, then just why not just take it down
>>> now instead of waiting for it to crash hard?
>>
>> Why take something down when it works and people are using it?
>
> Because sooner or later you will have to upgrade or run with a no longer
> supported version of PHP - which includes security fixes, leaving your
> site open to all kinds of problems.
But why take it down NOW?
> The deprecated warnings are there for a reason
- and there is a reason why you can filter out deprecation warnings as a
separate group.
> To ignore them is the ultimate in stupidity.
Not to log the warnings are not the same as ignoring the problem. We
have weighted pros and cons and made a decision.
To spend resources on an old site that is hardly used anymore would be
more stupid in my world, but of course, if you have unlimited resources,
you can do everything...
Regards
Jonathan
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179078 is a reply to message #179077] |
Tue, 11 September 2012 13:32 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/11/2012 9:06 AM, Jonathan Stein wrote:
> On 11-09-2012 14:34, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>>>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which new
>>> projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old sites?
>>
>> Whichever ones are not as important as one that's being used.
>
> In my opinion, all our newer projects are more important, so please give
> me your opinion. You must have considered this, since you can conclude
> that "To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity".
>
Yes, in over 40 years of programming, I've seen lots of people with your
attitude, both single programmers and groups in corporate environments.
And without exception, every one of them has crashed and burned,
eventually.
You are not only ignoring the errors, you are trying to hide them. In a
year or two, you'll get to the point you have to upgrade PHP, i.e. some
new feature that was added or because the old version isn't supported
any more. At that point you'll have forgotten all about your
deprecation errors and your site(s) will break. And then it will be a
mad rush to try to install quick fixes to get it back up and running
again. And that will just add more bugs.
>>>> If the site isn't that important, then just why not just take it down
>>>> now instead of waiting for it to crash hard?
>>>
>>> Why take something down when it works and people are using it?
>>
>> Because sooner or later you will have to upgrade or run with a no longer
>> supported version of PHP - which includes security fixes, leaving your
>> site open to all kinds of problems.
>
> But why take it down NOW?
>
To save your clients the problem of it suddenly crashing later.
>> The deprecated warnings are there for a reason
>
> - and there is a reason why you can filter out deprecation warnings as a
> separate group.
>
Which is NOT so you can ignore them!
>> To ignore them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>
> Not to log the warnings are not the same as ignoring the problem. We
> have weighted pros and cons and made a decision.
>
Yes it is. Ever heard of "out of sight, out of mind"? If you don't see
the warnings, you WILL forget about them.
> To spend resources on an old site that is hardly used anymore would be
> more stupid in my world, but of course, if you have unlimited resources,
> you can do everything...
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
Then just take the site down and forget about it. If it isn't important
enough to fix before it breaks, then it's not important enough to keep
going.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179083 is a reply to message #179078] |
Tue, 11 September 2012 19:53 |
Jonathan Stein
Messages: 43
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 11-09-2012 15:32, Jerry wrote:
> You are not only ignoring the errors, you are trying to hide them. In a
> year or two, you'll get to the point you have to upgrade PHP, i.e. some
> new feature that was added or because the old version isn't supported
> any more. At that point you'll have forgotten all about your
> deprecation errors and your site(s) will break.
I won't state that this could not happen for us, but I'm pretty sure
that deprecated functions won't disappear in a minor service update.
(And we wouldn't do a major version upgrade without a little more testing).
However, there are many other things that could break a "minimalistic"
maintained site, and that's a risk we have considered.
It's not so graceful, but the few users can keep the sites a little
longer. That's our trade off.
>> But why take it down NOW?
>
> To save your clients the problem of it suddenly crashing later.
The problems if the sites crash tomorrow are not bigger than if we shot
down the sites today...
>> Not to log the warnings are not the same as ignoring the problem. We
>> have weighted pros and cons and made a decision.
>
> Yes it is. Ever heard of "out of sight, out of mind"? If you don't see
> the warnings, you WILL forget about them.
If the sites live to the day where we decide to upgrade to PHP 6, I'm
sure we'll test with all our sites. If the functions disappear earlier,
the old sites might crash (and then see above).
You - finally - had some good arguments, but they are not valid in this
particular case. That's the danger of skipping the analysis and jumping
directly to the conclusion.
So next time why not start with the arguments and let the poster draw
the conclusions?
Regards
Jonathan
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179084 is a reply to message #179083] |
Tue, 11 September 2012 20:16 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/11/2012 3:53 PM, Jonathan Stein wrote:
> On 11-09-2012 15:32, Jerry wrote:
>
>> You are not only ignoring the errors, you are trying to hide them. In a
>> year or two, you'll get to the point you have to upgrade PHP, i.e. some
>> new feature that was added or because the old version isn't supported
>> any more. At that point you'll have forgotten all about your
>> deprecation errors and your site(s) will break.
>
> I won't state that this could not happen for us, but I'm pretty sure
> that deprecated functions won't disappear in a minor service update.
> (And we wouldn't do a major version upgrade without a little more testing).
>
> However, there are many other things that could break a "minimalistic"
> maintained site, and that's a risk we have considered.
>
> It's not so graceful, but the few users can keep the sites a little
> longer. That's our trade off.
>
>>> But why take it down NOW?
>>
>> To save your clients the problem of it suddenly crashing later.
>
> The problems if the sites crash tomorrow are not bigger than if we shot
> down the sites today...
>
>>> Not to log the warnings are not the same as ignoring the problem. We
>>> have weighted pros and cons and made a decision.
>>
>> Yes it is. Ever heard of "out of sight, out of mind"? If you don't see
>> the warnings, you WILL forget about them.
>
> If the sites live to the day where we decide to upgrade to PHP 6, I'm
> sure we'll test with all our sites. If the functions disappear earlier,
> the old sites might crash (and then see above).
>
>
> You - finally - had some good arguments, but they are not valid in this
> particular case. That's the danger of skipping the analysis and jumping
> directly to the conclusion.
>
> So next time why not start with the arguments and let the poster draw
> the conclusions?
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
I figured you had enough experience to understand the conclusion. I see
I was wrong.
And, every one of the people/groups I've seen crash and burn have
promised "it won't happen to us". But it did.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179086 is a reply to message #179074] |
Tue, 11 September 2012 23:16 |
Thomas 'PointedEars'
Messages: 701
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jonathan Stein wrote:
> On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>
> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which new
> projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old sites?
If the rest of the code is not complete junk, getting rid of *those*
warnings requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
operations; BTDT. Which can be done in PHP of course, but there are
specialized tools (any decent text editor can do that). Maybe someone even
has written a PHP 5.2 to 5.3 converter already. And if not, why don't you
write one, and save everyone your whining here?
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179087 is a reply to message #179086] |
Wed, 12 September 2012 00:18 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/11/2012 7:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Jonathan Stein wrote:
>
>> On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>>
>> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which new
>> projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old sites?
>
> If the rest of the code is not complete junk, getting rid of *those*
> warnings requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
> operations; BTDT. Which can be done in PHP of course, but there are
> specialized tools (any decent text editor can do that). Maybe someone even
> has written a PHP 5.2 to 5.3 converter already. And if not, why don't you
> write one, and save everyone your whining here?
>
>
> PointedEars
>
Blindly changing code with search and replace is a major invitation for
trouble! But then it's exactly what I would expect YOU would do.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179088 is a reply to message #179083] |
Wed, 12 September 2012 00:28 |
Christoph Becker
Messages: 91
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Jonathan Stein wrote:
> If the sites live to the day where we decide to upgrade to PHP 6
AFAIK finally the release of PHP 6 was scheduled: it will be released on
the day, when pigs can fly ;-) (FWIW: in Germany this day is called "St.
Nimmerlein")
To avoid misunderstandings: IMO fixing deprecated warnings should have a
high priority -- *high*, but not highest. I can understand Jonathan's
arguments, and perhaps it will help to add something in the line of the
following to the code:
if (!function_exists('...')) {
die('Sorry, this service isn't available anymore!');
}
--
Christoph M. Becker
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179089 is a reply to message #179088] |
Wed, 12 September 2012 01:08 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/11/2012 8:28 PM, Christoph Becker wrote:
> Jonathan Stein wrote:
>> If the sites live to the day where we decide to upgrade to PHP 6
>
> AFAIK finally the release of PHP 6 was scheduled: it will be released on
> the day, when pigs can fly ;-) (FWIW: in Germany this day is called "St.
> Nimmerlein")
>
> To avoid misunderstandings: IMO fixing deprecated warnings should have a
> high priority -- *high*, but not highest. I can understand Jonathan's
> arguments, and perhaps it will help to add something in the line of the
> following to the code:
>
> if (!function_exists('...')) {
> die('Sorry, this service isn't available anymore!');
> }
>
No, PHP6 will be out, but there has never been a release date scheduled
for it. There are still major issues with unicode support, which are
delaying things. Meanwhile, they've made a few of the changes in 5.4,
which allowed them some room.
As for your suggestion - sure, you could do that - but it should be just
as easy to fix the actual problem the first time and not have to worry
about it a second time.
I've always considered deprecated warnings to be relatively high
priority - definitely above E_NOTICE warnings (which I also get rid of),
but lower than fatal errors. After all - a deprecated warning is just a
fatal error in waiting.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179092 is a reply to message #179087] |
Wed, 12 September 2012 10:09 |
Thomas 'PointedEars'
Messages: 701
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 9/11/2012 7:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Jonathan Stein wrote:
>>> On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>>> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which new
>>> projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old sites?
>>
>> If the rest of the code is not complete junk, getting rid of *those*
>> warnings requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
>> operations; BTDT. Which can be done in PHP of course, but there are
>> specialized tools (any decent text editor can do that). Maybe someone
>> even has written a PHP 5.2 to 5.3 converter already. And if not, why
>> don't you write one, and save everyone your whining here?
>
> Blindly changing code with search and replace is a major invitation for
> trouble! But then it's exactly what I would expect YOU would do.
You are projecting. It would _not_ be done *blindly*.
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7(at)news(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179093 is a reply to message #179092] |
Wed, 12 September 2012 12:26 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/12/2012 6:09 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 9/11/2012 7:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Jonathan Stein wrote:
>>>> On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> > To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>>>> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which new
>>>> projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old sites?
>>>
>>> If the rest of the code is not complete junk, getting rid of *those*
>>> warnings requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
>>> operations; BTDT. Which can be done in PHP of course, but there are
>>> specialized tools (any decent text editor can do that). Maybe someone
>>> even has written a PHP 5.2 to 5.3 converter already. And if not, why
>>> don't you write one, and save everyone your whining here?
>>
>> Blindly changing code with search and replace is a major invitation for
>> trouble! But then it's exactly what I would expect YOU would do.
>
> You are projecting. It would _not_ be done *blindly*.
>
>
> PointedEars
>
"...requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
operations;... "
Blindly searching and replacing. You said it, I didn't.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179095 is a reply to message #179093] |
Wed, 12 September 2012 13:42 |
Thomas 'PointedEars'
Messages: 701
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 9/12/2012 6:09 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2012 7:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Jonathan Stein wrote:
>>>> > On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> >> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>>>> > Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which
>>>> > new projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old
>>>> > sites?
>>>> If the rest of the code is not complete junk, getting rid of *those*
>>>> warnings requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
>>>> operations; BTDT. Which can be done in PHP of course, but there are
>>>> specialized tools (any decent text editor can do that). Maybe someone
>>>> even has written a PHP 5.2 to 5.3 converter already. And if not, why
>>>> don't you write one, and save everyone your whining here?
>>> Blindly changing code with search and replace is a major invitation for
>>> trouble! But then it's exactly what I would expect YOU would do.
>> You are projecting. It would _not_ be done *blindly*.
>
> "...requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
> operations;... "
>
> Blindly searching and replacing. You said it, I didn't.
You are misconstruing what I said, unsurprisingly.
PointedEars
--
When all you know is jQuery, every problem looks $(olvable).
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179096 is a reply to message #179095] |
Wed, 12 September 2012 14:07 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2012 6:09 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 9/11/2012 7:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> > Jonathan Stein wrote:
>>>> >> On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> >>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>>>> >> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which
>>>> >> new projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old
>>>> >> sites?
>>>> > If the rest of the code is not complete junk, getting rid of *those*
>>>> > warnings requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
>>>> > operations; BTDT. Which can be done in PHP of course, but there are
>>>> > specialized tools (any decent text editor can do that). Maybe someone
>>>> > even has written a PHP 5.2 to 5.3 converter already. And if not, why
>>>> > don't you write one, and save everyone your whining here?
>>>> Blindly changing code with search and replace is a major invitation for
>>>> trouble! But then it's exactly what I would expect YOU would do.
>>> You are projecting. It would _not_ be done *blindly*.
>> "...requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
>> operations;... "
>>
>> Blindly searching and replacing. You said it, I didn't.
>
> You are misconstruing what I said, unsurprisingly.
>
Its Jerry double think. He blindly searches and replaces things in other
peoples posts in order that what he claims they posted then supports
his pathetic attempts at ego enhancement and probably penis extension..
for all I know
The kindest thing to do is pretend you simply didn't notice.
>
> PointedEars
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179097 is a reply to message #179095] |
Wed, 12 September 2012 16:08 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/12/2012 9:42 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2012 6:09 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 9/11/2012 7:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> > Jonathan Stein wrote:
>>>> >> On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> >>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>>>> >> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which
>>>> >> new projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old
>>>> >> sites?
>>>> > If the rest of the code is not complete junk, getting rid of *those*
>>>> > warnings requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
>>>> > operations; BTDT. Which can be done in PHP of course, but there are
>>>> > specialized tools (any decent text editor can do that). Maybe someone
>>>> > even has written a PHP 5.2 to 5.3 converter already. And if not, why
>>>> > don't you write one, and save everyone your whining here?
>>>> Blindly changing code with search and replace is a major invitation for
>>>> trouble! But then it's exactly what I would expect YOU would do.
>>> You are projecting. It would _not_ be done *blindly*.
>>
>> "...requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
>> operations;... "
>>
>> Blindly searching and replacing. You said it, I didn't.
>
> You are misconstruing what I said, unsurprisingly.
>
>
> PointedEars
>
Just quoting what you said. If that is not what you meant, you should
be more careful with your words. You said them, I didn't.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179098 is a reply to message #179097] |
Wed, 12 September 2012 16:13 |
Shake
Messages: 40
Registered: May 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
El 12/09/2012 18:08, Jerry Stuckle escribió:
>
> Just quoting what you said. If that is not what you meant, you should
> be more careful with your words. You said them, I didn't.
He doesn't said blindly.
If you don't understand the meant of what every other people
understood*, you should be more careful with your answers.
Regards.
* Including people as me, with not precisely a perfect skill with
english language.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179099 is a reply to message #179098] |
Wed, 12 September 2012 16:28 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Shake wrote:
> El 12/09/2012 18:08, Jerry Stuckle escribió:
>>
>> Just quoting what you said. If that is not what you meant, you should
>> be more careful with your words. You said them, I didn't.
>
> He doesn't said blindly.
He didn't say blindly..
>
> If you don't understand the meant of what every other people
If you don't understand the meaning of what every other person (or all
other people)
> understood*, you should be more careful with your answers.
>
> Regards.
>
> * Including people as me, with not precisely a perfect skill with
without a precise and perfect skill with the
> english language.
English language.
No charge for the lesson :-)
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179101 is a reply to message #179098] |
Wed, 12 September 2012 19:01 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/12/2012 12:13 PM, Shake wrote:
> El 12/09/2012 18:08, Jerry Stuckle escribió:
>>
>> Just quoting what you said. If that is not what you meant, you should
>> be more careful with your words. You said them, I didn't.
>
> He doesn't said blindly.
>
> If you don't understand the meant of what every other people
> understood*, you should be more careful with your answers.
>
> Regards.
>
> * Including people as me, with not precisely a perfect skill with
> english language.
A "regex search and replace" is a blind operation. Hand editing the
files is not - and is much more reliable.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Never log deprecation warnings [message #179102 is a reply to message #179101] |
Wed, 12 September 2012 19:35 |
Anders Wegge Keller
Messages: 30
Registered: May 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> writes:
> A "regex search and replace" is a blind operation. Hand editing the
> files is not - and is much more reliable.
You are indeed a moron, sir!
If you had taken the time to read the qualifier from Pointedears, you
would have seen that the statement was only related to the recent list
of deprecated functions. Looking over it, it seems like a very safe
guess that yes, in this particular case a regexp can be devised, that
will provable create the same results as the unchanged code.
Just dfor the record: I routinely do similar transforamtions on C
code in my job, and so far we have yet to see an error being
introduced there.
--
/Wegge
Leder efter redundant peering af dk.*,linux.debian.*
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]