Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118576
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-927-gf4c98c8499-fm-20220826.002-gf4c98c84
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <de7c9a48-6ffb-4b48-831b-00f1a24cd7af@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2474d6fc-a61d-19e8-b903-ff389dbb9ff6@bastelstu.be>
References: <530b3a9d-0ee4-6061-8c69-df672d238032@bastelstu.be>
 <628f27cd-d7f0-4a75-bf5b-f4812ff459a5@www.fastmail.com>
 <2474d6fc-a61d-19e8-b903-ff389dbb9ff6@bastelstu.be>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2022 16:44:42 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC [Discussion]: Improve unserialize() error handling
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Wed, Sep 7, 2022, at 10:37 AM, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 9/5/22 23:12, Larry Garfield wrote:
>>> RFC: Improve unserialize() error handling
>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/improve_unserialize_error_handling
>>>
>> Well-explained and well-argued.  The only thing I'd add is that we sh=
ould consider bumping the E_NOTICE to an E_WARNING, *and* slating it to =
increase to an exception in 9.0.  This feels like a smaller BC concern t=
han most, but people are extra sensitive these days about those edge cas=
es so it's probably good to be cautious.
>
> Can you please clarify whether you mean:
>
> 1. Change the existing E_WARNING option to "E_WARNING+Exception in 9.0=
".
> 2. Add a new "E_WARNING+Exception in 9.0" option the vote, such that t=
he=20
> vote will be "E_WARNING" vs "E_WARNING+Exception in 9.0" vs "Exception"
>
> Best regards
> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus

Either I guess?  Honestly we should decide that in advance on the list. =
:-)  E_WARNING+Exception in 9 is what I'd probably favor, with "Exceptio=
n now" as a second choice.

--Larry Garfield