Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:67825
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.181 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51C9F485.6050709@sugarcrm.com>
References: <etPan.51c8ce38.54e49eb4.5757@MacBook-Air-van-Joost-Koehoorn.local>
	<4ED7146272E04A47B986ED49E771E347BB4DF6F235@Ikarus.ameusgmbh.intern>
	<etPan.51c97c9a.2ca88611.5757@MacBook-Air-van-Joost-Koehoorn.local>
	<51C9DED2.5080401@sugarcrm.com>
	<CALJZF3gFo4UMzYOhO1Qx4GjtAdEQh_wTE26axW8RZsjaoyUc2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<51C9F485.6050709@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:06:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL+t6cGec0DR6c6mP3uHjsVabgDVMYXWwxDfkxjWEorDdtbg5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: Michael Wallner <mike@php.net>, Joost Koehoorn <joost.koehoorn@gmail.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f50335a1fc0e104e0001174
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: Announcing RFC 'Anonymous Catches'
From: theanomaly.is@gmail.com (Sherif Ramadan)

--e89a8f50335a1fc0e104e0001174
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>wrote:

> Hi!
>
> > IMO actually it *makes* the code clearer, because $ignoredException is
> > not used, though a variable name like $ignored is self-explanatory,
> > too.
>
> It's not used by you - which btw is usually not a good idea - if you've
> got an exception, you usually should somehow react to it - at least log
> it or something, that's what the exceptions are for, if the situation
> does not require special handling it shouldn't be an exception. But it
> may be very useful for debugging, for example. Especially if somebody
> other than you looks at this code and tries to figure out what is going
> on. Removing vital information - like ability to see which exception was
> thrown - just to save 3 keystrokes - looks like a very misguided idea to
> me.
>
>
Not to down-play the importance of what you're saying, since I fully agree
with it, but he is saying that this isn't a key-stroke saving proposition.

If I'm to understand this RFC correctly, it is nothing more than a random
suggestion someone posed in the form of a tweet and the author is saying
why not add it since it's not hard to implement. So in summation this is
one of those "nice to have" features that has little cost and very little
benefit. And I'm referring only to making the Exception variable optional
(not the anonymous catch -- I'm entirely opposed to that part).

So this entire discussion can be summed up nicely with "Let's make the
variable optional because... why not?".

--e89a8f50335a1fc0e104e0001174--