Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:61687
Return-Path: <johannes@schlueters.de>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 3236 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2012 14:45:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 24 Jul 2012 14:45:12 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=johannes@schlueters.de; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=johannes@schlueters.de; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain schlueters.de from 217.114.211.66 cause and error)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: johannes@schlueters.de
X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.114.211.66 config.schlueters.de  
Received: from [217.114.211.66] ([217.114.211.66:42934] helo=config.schlueters.de)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 05/B7-17533-7F4BE005 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:45:12 -0400
Received: from [192.168.2.230] (ppp-188-174-33-141.dynamic.mnet-online.de [188.174.33.141])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by config.schlueters.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4899A6398A;
	Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:45:08 +0200 (CEST)
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: Laruence <laruence@php.net>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nGCgy07wxmB7WG2EDcin-rCnS2uE0u5Q=K=zydCc2BVVw@mail.gmail.com>
References:
	 <CABBJUpe-i3o5DcFH_cMJf7QxHmzkE3afjL_TXFrg-mCmOiFa=w@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1343137723.2084.301.camel@guyrush>
	 <CAAyV7nGCgy07wxmB7WG2EDcin-rCnS2uE0u5Q=K=zydCc2BVVw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:44:21 +0200
Message-ID: <1343141061.2084.376.camel@guyrush>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Supports 'finally' keyword for PHP exceptions
From: johannes@schlueters.de (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=)

On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 10:37 -0400, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> 
> If you went by "possible", half the proposals for the language
> wouldn't be accepted (password hashing, generators, goto, Class name
> to scalar resolution, T_AS for closures, type hints, call-time
> dereferencing, traits, classes, etc). All of that behavior is possible
> without the language sugar that they bring. The main drive for adding
> them is that it makes a developers life a lot easier. Rather than
> dealing with yet another level of abstraction to add an object, adding
> a simple finally clause would make implementing that sort of cleanup
> FAR easier. 

That's why I asked for cases where this language construct is needed. I,
from my personal, limited, experience don't have that many needs for
this feature.

I however see that it makes try/catch blocks and stack frames more
expensive (both in CPU time and memory) and the language more complex.

Te best argument I saw in this discussion for adding it was "it's
possible and I want it". This I don't see as enough reason.

johannes