Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:43209 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 77841 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2009 03:58:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Feb 2009 03:58:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ron@Opus1.COM; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ron@Opus1.COM; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain Opus1.COM designates 192.245.12.8 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ron@Opus1.COM X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.245.12.8 Viola.Opus1.COM OpenVMS 7.2 (Multinet 4.3-4.4 stack) Received: from [192.245.12.8] ([192.245.12.8:4986] helo=Viola.Opus1.COM) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 1C/DA-30584-6C467A94 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:58:00 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.6] ([76.105.138.13]) by Opus1.COM (PMDF V6.2-X27 #9830) with ESMTPSA id <01N5YVBC2MAQ97JC7W@Opus1.COM> for internals@lists.php.net; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:57:53 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:57:42 -0800 In-reply-to: <49A75C1F.40401@chiaraquartet.net> To: Greg Beaver Cc: Pierre Joye , PHP Internals List Message-ID: <8C3D8E9F-08B7-4407-BEF3-9FC28492B099@opus1.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Gpgmail-State: !signed References: <49A75C1F.40401@chiaraquartet.net> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: add "scream" feature to core From: ron@Opus1.COM (Ronald Chmara) On Feb 26, 2009, at 7:21 PM, Greg Beaver wrote: > Pierre Joye wrote: >> Hi, >> What's about adding what screan (http://pecl.php.net/scream) to the >> standard PHP? Everyone needs it and it should be possible to do that >> without having to install an extension. >> Comments/objections? > If it can be done easily and unobtrusively to existing code, this > would > be useful to me for those hard-to-catch bugs in old code. Of > course, I > am one of the people Ilia is referring to who can do a 3-4 second > "pecl > install" pretty easily, so I don't have a strong stake in the debate > either way :) I'd rather see this as part of E_ALL, or maybe E_NOSUPPRESS (or something that sounds better). As far as the former, (E_ALL), I'd kind of actually hope that it gave me *ALL*, not just *ALL (...except suppressed errors)*. Actually, I've assumed it would. That being said, I: a) Don't mind typing a few lines to install something b) Wonder why "ALL" would be a limited subset of errors, with @ errors ignored. -Bop