Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25823 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 79212 invoked by uid 1010); 25 Sep 2006 17:29:16 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 79197 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2006 17:29:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Sep 2006 17:29:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net from 82.94.239.5 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.94.239.5 jdi.jdi-ict.nl Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from [82.94.239.5] ([82.94.239.5:51292] helo=jdi.jdi-ict.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 26/CC-24622-BE118154 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:29:16 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jdi.jdi-ict.nl (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k8PHTCUW015579; Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:29:12 +0200 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:28:53 +0200 (CEST) X-X-Sender: derick@localhost To: Zeev Suraski cc: Michael Wallner , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060924133501.05254570@zend.com> Message-ID: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060924133501.05254570@zend.com> X-Face: "L'&?Ah3MYF@FB4hU'XhNhLB]222(Lbr2Y@F:GE[OO;"F5p>qtFBl|yVVA&D{A(g3[C}mG:199P+5C'v.M/u@Z\![0b:Mv.[l6[uWl' MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] (was: Parameter checking in 5.2) From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Zeev Suraski wrote: > 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. As long as we then implement E_STRICT for all the other times where we are "breaking" OO design that would work. regards, Derick