Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70541
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.182 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: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 21:14:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CADNQb0VDWdWh1n3y87d_t9wycrxXRQm-S-b32Gf_yMU+b=RLGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Allowing use of exceptions in the engine
From: hannes.magnusson@gmail.com (Hannes Magnusson)

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 4:57 AM, 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 proposal
> without BC issues.
>

Wow. This is one of the bigger language changes I have seen proposed to date.

I see the framework guys jumping in on this right away wanting pretty
OO interface of course - but hold your horses a bit.
This is a very fundamental change in the language and a vote should
not be casted lightly.

The recoverable error cases is something I argued when breaking type
hinting was decided to be E_REOCVERABLE_ERROR for reasons that still
baffle me (and depending if its extension code or userland code,
effectively continues current context or not, since internals will
most likely bail out on zpp) - but now we are talking about about
changing something much bigger then that...

If this gets accepted, what is the reason we have these error levels
at all, and shouldn't E_* friends be rewritten into more convenient
logging framework and remove the association with "errors"?

-Hannes