Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49506
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.42 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=f+1FVblIkw9YRcKhUxQ7d4SAUT87+GZocUkw+bScDG5NPhjCf4IFAiB2jFjaPnWtxa
         pDYEa8ZUwneOfesKYbm7LWz20jlpOedqJJCu2P7WdSfzbL/5m+iPIVtvBx+EObQQVsOf
         PGZfkjNZfrti5dCZwSl2K0uPZe8ulYkf1PKzE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: tjerk.meesters@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4C74B692.2010609@lsces.co.uk>
References: <AANLkTikP0cooG91ZgSeRS+H0fXCjDdLRUpO53OhT8FYC@mail.gmail.com>
	<1282674464.3333.119.camel@guybrush>
	<4C74B692.2010609@lsces.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:58:55 +0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=YG9_5eVReTpy-4Ftq+tXzhuGVzGK9wgqdE5=0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] #52563: Adding E_NONE and/or E_EVERYTHING constants
From: datibbaw@php.net (Tjerk Anne Meesters)

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk> wrote:
> Johannes Schl=FCter wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 18:49 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
>>>
>>> Johannes has pointed out on IRC that E_NONE does already exist in some
>>> projects, so that's an argument against it.
>>
>> Yeah, I did a quick code search, which gave some results defining a
>> constant with that name. This means adding this in 5.3 would be a
>> annoyance and upgrading from X.Y.(Z-1) to X.Y.Z should be a no
>> brainer ... on the other hand the fact that people are defining such a
>> constant and the bug report show that there is some need.
>>
>> I myself don't see a point in a constant for an empty bit mask. As an
>> empty bit mask means 0 ... on the other hand it doesn't cost us much.
>>
>> So, I'm +/- 0 on this for trunk.
>
> 'a quick code search' for '0' is not going to produce anything sensible,
> while a quick code search for 'E_NONE' will (in theory) pick up all the
> places where that particular setting is used. So there IS some sensible
> reason to add 'pointless' constants. The problem is - it only works if
> people DO use it consistently ...

How many times do the E_XX constants appear without 'error_reporting'
next to it?

>
> Given that many people are not used to the maze of code, improving
> navigability by adding consistent 'pointless' constants could potentially
> help a lot, even if the constant is simply added as a comment where a che=
ck
> for 0 does not actually need the value?

I honestly see more value in the E_EVERYTHING than the E_NONE simply
because -1 seems to be more "magical" than 0; the fact that 'all' and
'everything' would mean different things is ... regrettable ;-)


>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -----------------------------
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=3Dcontact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
> Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>



--=20
--
Tjerk