Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:62767
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain nebm.ist.utl.pt from 193.136.128.21 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 00:34:41 +0200
To: <internals@lists.php.net>
Organization: =?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=BAcleo_de_Engenharia_Biom=C3=A9dica_do_Insti?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?tuto_Superior_T=C3=A9cnico?=
In-Reply-To: <50452713.3020307@sugarcrm.com>
References: <AANLkTimWuPXCs-HT6RgQYmH7UKcOYXkeTiMEnBwBXxnt@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH-PCH4YdBr7WfQ2PR0_Fr_C=TfBsSGsbX3G-jonUqyfLrCcZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5040DC47.8000305@ajf.me>
 <CAH-PCH5TM2ag-5xm3Rk7Ef6LnpEst1UqRoc_f_Uwp_aLe418dA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5040F4D9.80206@sugarcrm.com>
 <CAEZPtU6X9gLRALzA+KGKNoF5c7ey-xgJ=0NhjF2qVfD9YJqN+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5042946A.80204@sugarcrm.com> <op.wjzdwn08idpuyk@damnation.nl.lo.geleia.net>
 <5042A7D6.7050001@lerdorf.com>
 <op.wjzgbuh1idpuyk@damnation.nl.lo.geleia.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1209031214250.25835@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <a565e97fdd574cebf2baca1c54c425a2@nebm.ist.utl.pt>
 <50452713.3020307@sugarcrm.com>
Message-ID: <b6bf26cb6b4d2392d5fd13237669a19d@nebm.ist.utl.pt>
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.8-rc
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Are exceptions allowed in php
 =?UTF-8?Q?core=3F?=
From: glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt (Gustavo Lopes)

Em 2012-09-03 23:54, Stas Malyshev escreveu:
> Hi!
>
>> indicating such mental model is widespread and (2) given that the
>> exceptions you claim to be surprising don't happen but for a 
>> programming
>> error (i.e. they're not exceptions that need to be caught).
>
> Following this logic, we'd have to convert all E_NOTICE and E_STRICT 
> to
> fatal errors or exceptions - they are usually produced by programming
> errors and aren't meant to be caught by surrounding code (actually,
> can't). But I don't see anybody benefiting from this - as I don't see
> anybody benefiting from generator that will explode your application 
> if
> you touch it twice.
>

That does not follow at all.

First, E_NOTICE exists to permit a compromise between people like Zeev 
that think its introduction was an error and that one should be able to 
refer to undefined variables and people who prefer a stricter model. For 
the programmers that follow this stricter model, an E_NOTICE ends ups 
frequently being a fatal (because, for instance, you invoke a method on 
the resulting null); some other times you're lucky and you just missed 
an "else $var = null" branch, other times the error is far more serious, 
like an unintended null -> 0 conversion.

Second, E_STRICT exists to encourage good OOP practices. There is a lot 
of code that generates E_STRICT that does what it was intended to do 
(ask Lester). By definition, code that's not supposed to generate 
E_STRICT messages but does is buggy, but the fact that some code raises 
an E_STRICT does not signal, by itself, a bug.

-- 
Gustavo Lopes