Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69670
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.223.179 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jdavidlists@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <5260D11C.90406@php.net>
References: <D7.A0.22512.AE09F525@pb1.pair.com>
	<525FC834.4060501@php.net>
	<CAMUwpuRHpAB6ut8CZ2TJJF0oJJ7B1QfSP_+Nfv3sda=QoyWb-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1534105.bNC2os93J1@rofl>
	<CALJZF3h75yw2=mETjyZz1=005XmwX1K2wHujfRMufu3QBL_rrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<525FDAC3.6060103@php.net>
	<CABXB=RTU=m-Ugkkk1gqa_HXRV_K7dPL3CEuyzDtY+EwQ8mD=aw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c-s-tanQoYV+AzkjxWJ_crJPPxT4HJg4dfnaFMfx5i4gA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABXB=RS_eDxTRmTqqPzwqhAcCH6BLjx82kNV3rafWiJXqocA1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c_=e=8iwr7n3PVVKtbEPniGem0fYpn5NtHf6LjJzEZ5iA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABXB=RRGUf6dX=CfzkgH94-yf_1E565wDmh412KXtPo-w2=x5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c_=fGO3sA5TkDXVNGWaLENPmXo_GgL5jqYcZpxXxi9sWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABXB=RRSuoFzqex2thiiaR7LWG=4Z-eQAJ4tnajguMdBkemq7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5260D11C.90406@php.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:35:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CABXB=RTgrTxgBsw2khfJo21CfrEvMKWnjpcOtq2w98UtT5xe7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Watkins <krakjoe@php.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Assertions
From: j.david.lists@gmail.com (J David)

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Joe Watkins <krakjoe@php.net> wrote:
> You have been provided very good rationale for the use of exceptions to
> handle failed assertions, we'd all be grateful if you could stop derailing
> the conversation.

Wow.  Well, if you speak for everyone on this subject then go ahead
and implement it.  Break all existing code everywhere that uses
assert() and catches all exceptions.

But:

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Julien Pauli <jpauli@php.net> wrote:
> However, there is always the debatte about if a Core feature should throw
> an Exception or generate an error.

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Sebastian Krebs <krebs.seb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually if an assertion fails it means, that the application is totally
> broken and cannot get recovered. The use case you describe is more like
> "validation".
> This means, that even if it throws an AssertionException, when you are able
> to catch it and recover the process, it means, that "assert" was the wrong
> choice

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Michael Wallner <mike@php.net> wrote:
> I tend to see it the same way. I think PHP's assert is derived from
> C's assert, where ASSERT(3) says:
>
> "... assert() prints an error message to standard error and terminates
>  the  program  by  calling abort(3) if expression is false ..."
>
> Where the important part is "terminates the program".

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote:
> Reading through the discussion, I think this point may deserve more
> prominence: the problem with throwing an exception is that it is possible
> (and probably quite common) to have a catch block which catches *all*
> exceptions. Throwing an exception from assert() tangles up any handling you
> did want to do for failed assertions with the presumably rather different
> handling you want to do for runtime exceptions.

are you sure you speak for "all" and that merely expressing an
dissenting opinion is "derailing the discussion?"

The feature you want is a useful new feature.  The only feedback I am
offering you is to please consider adding it without breaking existing
features, for example by calling it "expect" or "validate" instead of
"assert."  The word "assert" is not innately magic.  Put "see also
'expect'" in the documentation of assert and if your functionality is
truly better in all cases, people will naturally move from assert to
expect and eventually maybe assert can be deprecated if PHP is really
such a high-level language where it is not appropriate to have.  The
only effect of calling this new functionality "assert" is to break
existing code.

Not to mention that since this approach does not break BC, doing it
this way may allow the implementation of this feature sooner from a
release standpoint.

Likewise, if you separately want to enhance the diagnostic value of
the existing assert functionality without breaking existing code, that
would also, I believe, be most welcome.  But I don't pretend to speak
for all so I cannot say for sure.

If your response is "No, you are wrong because I say so," then so be
it.  You may rely on my lack of further participation in the
discussion, per your request.

Thanks!