Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70521
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.223.174 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c9Hxzi_JhyZkyi6Ly9zxWjgFsCBsvgzH7a8n-ce3kPKYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c9Hxzi_JhyZkyi6Ly9zxWjgFsCBsvgzH7a8n-ce3kPKYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 18:05:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH600w_eE9570f3+HOrKU7Kzk3GJ_jLWGRSQpFsAXyTWuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba5bc98b88107b04ecf4c438
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Allowing use of exceptions in the engine
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--90e6ba5bc98b88107b04ecf4c438
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi internals!
>
> I opened the vote on the "Exceptions in the engine" RFC:
>
>     https://wiki.php.net/rfc/engine_exceptions#vote
>
> The vote has three options, "Yes", "No" and "Yes, without
> E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR changes". The last option is a version of the proposa=
l
> without BC issues.
>
> Some further notes:
>  * I will not be including something like BaseException. Introducing it f=
or
> this purpose seems like bad design and will be very hard to get rid of in
> the future. As the proposal (without recoverable errors) does not break B=
C
> [1] even without it, I don't see a reason to introduce it.
>  * Some people suggest to use different subclasses of EngineException for
> different error types. I'm not against that, but I think it's okay to do
> that in a separate proposal, if someone can come up with a good selection
> of exception classes. It's much easier (and does not break BC) to add
> subclassing later, than to add suboptimal subclass types now and try to f=
ix
> something like the SPL exception mess later.
>  * The suggested uncaught exception error message change is just a bit of
> cosmetics (and not directly related to this proposal), so I'd like to do
> that separately.
>
> And regarding the vote: If you are in favor of the proposal in general, b=
ut
> want to have it in PHP 6 rather than PHP 5.6, then vote "No" here. If it
> fails now, someone can revive this once the time for PHP 6 has come.
>
> Thanks,
> Nikita
>
> [1]: We don't have a formal definition for this, but it seems to be gener=
al
> consensus that relaxing error conditions does not constitute a backwards
> compatibility break.
>

personally I have seen catch-all blocks in the wild (try {//do something}
catch(Exception $e) {//do nothing}), which would behave differently (and
some of them would screw something up instead of terminating the app) if
the EngineException is a subclass of Exception.
I can see myself supporting this proposal for 5.6, if we can have it done
in a truly BC-safe manner, but I can understand, if the required
compromises for that would make the feature too "clunky", so maybe it would
be better to introduce it in a major version.

--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--90e6ba5bc98b88107b04ecf4c438--