Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:16773 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 22235 invoked by uid 1010); 17 Jun 2005 08:54:04 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 22220 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2005 08:54:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gmail.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Jun 2005 08:54:04 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 64.233.162.205 zproxy.gmail.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from ([64.233.162.205:33433] helo=zproxy.gmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 1.2 r(5656M)) with SMTP id 9E/E9-20931-CAF82B24 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 04:54:04 -0400 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 12so301206nzp for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:54:00 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=sgnDBy1oWJFMh73OfFoEvul86IEmaeYKyOge4og+87AdgsbhaPsE8aavvtNDsmDpT5Sj3l1O5dw1sX+vCEYtZFsW2nDoIcDBuEhBgYlnsbaoxKYpIWOfnDVULI+9OFCmL/aOetlnAx3H36Nb8Hco+wMIUtmFbkcScGB40UU9T5g= Received: by 10.36.67.16 with SMTP id p16mr1208686nza; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.57.3 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:54:00 +0100 Reply-To: Nelson Menezes To: Sebastian Mendel Cc: internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <50.53.20931.5B762B24@pb1.pair.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <42B13E9A.7080706@php-tools.net> <95.E7.20931.05441B24@pb1.pair.com> <200506161126.44054.johannes@php.net> <50.53.20931.5B762B24@pb1.pair.com> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] forward compatibility "public" in 4.4 From: flying.mushroom@gmail.com (Nelson Menezes) On 6/17/05, Sebastian Mendel wrote: > > Besides, the point of E_STRICT seems to be to _enforce_ best practices > > -- and if you care about this matter, considering all members as > > "public" is probably defying the concept anyway. >=20 > but defining all as public doesnt produces any NOTICEs, neither now nor > with the feature we are talking about. True, but that's not the point. E_STRICT complaints about "var" are a way of saying "erm, you actually didn't put much thought into building this class; you should think about the level of visibility of its members". If you don't want those reminders, forget about E_STRICT. If you leave E_STRICT enabled but try to bypass it (by declaring everything as public for BC) then you didn't understand what E_STRICT is for... --=20 Nelson Menezes flying.mushroom@gmail.com