Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25808
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <47.D2.14982.92F96154@pb1.pair.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <A6.E3.49133.499A2154@pb1.pair.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0609221005100.3563@localhost> <7.0.1.0.2.20060924133501.05254570@zend.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:04:32 +0200
Lines: 36
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] (was: Parameter checking in 5.2)
From: r.korving@xit.nl ("Ron Korving")

In this case, wouldn't E_NOTICE make more sense? E_STRICT kind of indicates
that certain behaviour is deprecated, right?

- Ron


"Zeev Suraski" <zeev@zend.com> wrote in message
news:7.0.1.0.2.20060924133501.05254570@zend.com...
> At 11:10 22/09/2006, Derick Rethans wrote:
> >On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Michael Wallner wrote:
> >
> > > [ ] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
> > > [X] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
> > > [ ] ( 0) what the hell are you talking about?
> >
> >It's not necessarily a *strict* OO implementaiton though, it's one that
> >is correct. Strictness is where we would disallow setting object
> >properties on the fly while not declaring that. I would actually like to
> >see that throwing an e_strict too as that would make debugging easier as
> >well. however, in the case of signatures you *have* to be strict ... but
> >
> >I guess we would only see the full implications if you're very well
> >versed with OO theory (definitely not saying that I am).
>
> I think it's exactly the same thing as setting object properties on
> the fly - both can cause problems with certain OO-based
> theories/algorithms.  Whatever we call it (strictness, correctness) -
> it's pretty much the same.
>
> I think we need a fourth option in the poll - keep the error as
> E_STRICT and nothing more (also in future versions).  That would get my
vote.
>
> Zeev