Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107223 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 89854 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2019 01:15:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp3.php.net) (208.43.231.12) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2019 01:15:48 -0000 Received: from php-smtp3.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A052D1FDF for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:53:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp3.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS3301 81.224.0.0/12 X-Spam-Virus: No Received: from v-smtpout3.han.skanova.net (v-smtpout3.han.skanova.net [81.236.60.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.7.5] ([213.64.245.126]) by cmsmtp with ESMTPA id Aip0iLremXLfmAip0iGiDt; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:53:15 +0200 To: Claude Pache , Nikita Popov Cc: PHP internals References: <1BB4FA3E-23F6-45CB-9B8F-8DA3C497981D@gmail.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:53:13 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1BB4FA3E-23F6-45CB-9B8F-8DA3C497981D@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfOceA8/+hU6gFjLsZzPr2PU05BVmS0sgpTDyj5bF5fZKBZhacsd668xM+XuXBiLvVaxxg+WRfZX78COZk0FlYjEQOXiG8XVfpMZV64oy5rCAHBZj6Y49 CIeBN4hko7sTW6qtYhV77GCpN9PuZBLubvbDzx/ZBSWMXggdVbzDaJPovqVYHb23abtjxcbb2kjbtOoI46ABfPg1gSBQEFZsfKAEkzj7CmNYELsg0rlak6kJ xkvR/v75ihYZgffctXMZOg== X-Envelope-From: Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Reclassifying engine warnings From: bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Bj=c3=b6rn_Larsson?=) Den 2019-09-18 kl. 21:44, skrev Claude Pache: >> Le 18 sept. 2019 à 18:28, Nikita Popov a écrit : >> >> I just realized that I missed one notice here, because it is generated from >> a different location: "Constant %s already defined" (The define/const will >> be ignored and the previous value used.) >> >> It would be great to have that as an exception for optimization reasons, >> but as it's only a notice right now ... what do people think about >> promoting it to a warning? >> >> Nikita > Since attempting to define an already defined constant fails to perform the expected operation (i.e., defining the constant to *that* value), I think that a Warning is very reasonable. > > —Claude I also think that a warning would be appropriate here. Have stumbled on it myself, not having notices on. r//Björn L