Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:24374 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 47841 invoked by uid 1010); 14 Jul 2006 05:59:47 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 47825 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2006 05:59:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Jul 2006 05:59:47 -0000 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: jeff@procata.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 207.58.169.145 vps.procata.net Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from ([207.58.169.145:59753] helo=vps.procata.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.3 r(11751M)) with ESMTP id 89/4B-41830-2D237B44 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 01:59:46 -0400 Received: from [65.111.192.232] (helo=[65.111.192.232]) by vps.procata.net with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1G1GiE-0000nY-4n; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 01:59:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <0F.C0.46743.0CB15B44@pb1.pair.com> References: <0F.C0.46743.0CB15B44@pb1.pair.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: internals@lists.php.net Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 01:59:57 -0400 To: Lukas Smith X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.624) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - vps.procata.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.php.net X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - procata.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] E_STRICT From: jeff@procata.com (Jeff Moore) On Jul 12, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Lukas Smith wrote: > Therefore my proposal would be to simply add a defined "header" to all > E_STRICT messages that contains the PHP version in which this E_STRICT > message was added. Hi Lukas, An alternative might be to implement numerical error code identifiers and then allocate them sequentially. Identifying error messages introduced in future versions could be done by comparing the error code number against the last defined code in a known version. I'm not sure about the importance of the use case of identifying the version introduced, but having error codes might have other merits. Best Regards, Jeff