Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:23809 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 84359 invoked by uid 1010); 31 May 2006 03:24:25 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 84344 invoked from network); 31 May 2006 03:24:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 31 May 2006 03:24:25 -0000 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: andi@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.74.107.235 mail.zend.com Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from ([80.74.107.235:6703] helo=mail.zend.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id 7A/49-07504-86C0D744 for ; Tue, 30 May 2006 23:24:24 -0400 Received: (qmail 1141 invoked from network); 31 May 2006 03:23:59 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ANDI-NOTEBOOK.zend.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 31 May 2006 03:23:59 -0000 Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060530202309.037a3df8@zend.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 20:24:14 -0700 To: "Steph Fox" ,"Marcus Boerger" , "Christian Schneider" Cc: "Antony Dovgal" ,, "Hannes Magnusson" In-Reply-To: <06f301c68457$ffa0b060$6602a8c0@foxbox> References: <06f301c68457$ffa0b060$6602a8c0@foxbox> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: cvs: ZendEngine2(PHP_5_2) / zend_compile.czend_object_handlers.c /tests bug37632.phpt From: andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans) I think E_STRICT the way it is, is good enough. We don't need to make it even more confusing by having lots of additional error levels. We do mention in some E_STRICT msgs that things are deprecated "Deprecated: ...". Some things are just best practices... Let's not over complicate this and have a gazillion of error msgs. At 07:14 PM 5/30/2006, Steph Fox wrote: >Now if we were _really_ sneaky, we'd make E_DEVEL visible in 'lint >mode' only... > >>>At 03:02 PM 5/30/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote: >>>> whatever the patch looks like, it is a change from 5.0.0's E_STRICT >>>>to a E_COMPILE_ERROR and actually fixes another problem. This raises >>>>an interesting question. How long must we wait until we can follow the >>>>E_STRICT idea and change a specific E_STRICT into a fatal error. Must >>>>it be until eternity? >>> >>>E_STRICT doesn't mean that those warnings will become errors down >>>the road. It just enforces best practices, and some might >>>deprecate and some might not... >> >>Now that's why I suggested E_DEVEL for 'advisory' issues. The >>problem is that E_STRICT, according to the manual and most of the >>dev team, is only there for 'real' deprecation issues. >> >>- Steph >> >>>Andi