Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117230
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM6PR14MB41557A1D56484251B5F9AF37F9329@DM6PR14MB4155.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
 <d5f2c8f0-62b4-2ca6-a9c0-b1ddf512616b@woltlab.com>
In-Reply-To: <d5f2c8f0-62b4-2ca6-a9c0-b1ddf512616b@woltlab.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 15:48:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMrTa2Ff0CBCqWHAwRscV5ut9Pd08A8K9_=sc2aL_yqBdn=bvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus=2C_WoltLab_GmbH?= <duesterhus@woltlab.com>
Cc: tyson andre <tysonandre775@hotmail.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ffe4ea05d944ecd8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding `class UnsupportedOperationException extends
 RuntimeException` to php?
From: jordan.ledoux@gmail.com (Jordan LeDoux)

--000000000000ffe4ea05d944ecd8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 5:42 AM Tim D=C3=BCsterhus, WoltLab GmbH <
duesterhus@woltlab.com> wrote:

> Hi Tyson
>
> On 2/13/22 16:50, tyson andre wrote:
> > Currently, there doesn't seem to be an exact fit for indicating that a
> method isn't supported on an object by design (and will throw
> unconditionally).
> > (For example, when implementing an interface or overriding a base class=
,
> e.g. an Immutable datastructure not implementing offsetSet/offsetUnset,
> > an object that does not support serialization and overrides
> __serialize/__unserialize to forbid it, etc.)
> >
> > [=E2=80=A6]
> >
> > Thoughts on adding UnsupportedOperationException to the spl?
> >
>
> The "Redacting parameters in back traces" RFC has the same issue for the
> SensitiveParameterValue::__unserialize() method [1] which is not
> supported by design.
>
> In userland I'd commonly use BadMethodCallException for this purpose,
> but thinking about it: A `LogicException` is not really fitting for the
> reasons you outlined.
>
> UnsupportedOperationException sounds like a useful addition to me.
>
>
I like this idea, however I think something other than 'Operation' should
be used. Perhaps it is due to all the work on my recent RFC, but to an
'Operation' implies an 'Operator'.

-Jordan

--000000000000ffe4ea05d944ecd8--