Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70555
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com from 209.85.215.50 cause and error)
References: <CAF+90c9Hxzi_JhyZkyi6Ly9zxWjgFsCBsvgzH7a8n-ce3kPKYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<bf72a3b3f08321543979442e053092fb@mail.gmail.com>	<CAF+90c9jDnOrUqOGsbuqRFDWHX_xZsegVsrgN_5XOXYU8U14rg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPgLKihoqsmrXVPXSxVJS3y4oSfY7AtCVk9B-r+P6xV1Ov_R_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABDNdAERsmDSuDtzy0PHpMzUfh0W6+oziNdRNKPZabaWjofJ9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABDNdAF10=Zv08de68poX6_s-5vMAZHRj9bWhupyfzXxqdwGyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<f28de2fc2bb258924714379195852565@mail.gmail.com> <CABDNdAGAmhL_wTQkXUKSibqcX3++WYm68B6K7n2ysrigUYbApw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABDNdAGAmhL_wTQkXUKSibqcX3++WYm68B6K7n2ysrigUYbApw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQGgDrPA5ha5cbTVFKdEKPSDNh1cIQHg5+i/AZVf/98CLfeT+QMA73L8AgmUJjMB6prLAgH3vPq3mjVNO7A=
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 18:22:37 +0200
Message-ID: <6dc040b1d4917ab616951694d3f37575@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Sturgeon <pjsturgeon@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: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> Right, you can absolutely live a full and healthy life in PHP using
entirely
> procedural code (things like the dual interfaces for MySQLi ensure that)
but I
> really really do not see "here is an object, try/catch/finally or
> EngineException" as "forcing OO concepts on non-OO people" because it
> isn't. The user does not need to worry about propogation rules unless
they
> start writing their own exceptions and try/catch/finally is not
inherently OOP.
> Even if it was the average procedural user is just going to see the
difference
> of "Fatal Error you code is screwed" changing to "Uncaught Engine
Exception
> your code is screwed" if they don't want to bother catching anything,
which
> they wouldn't if they didnt want to use try/catch... so the whole thing
is a bit
> of a non-argument.

Our implementation of exceptions is very much OO, borrowed from Java
(which in turn borrowed a lot from C++).  You need to understand a fair
bit and know some extra syntax to exceptions properly, even if you don't
write new exception classes.  We can agree to disagree though, I don't
think we'll change each other's mind :)

> I know it is not your main concern, but I really don't want this
argument
> being used as one against this RFC in general.

For me it is an argument.  Instead of being able to handle these errors in
the same way they handle all other errors, now they have to learn new
syntax and concepts.  I see no reason to change the status quo, which
allows those who want exceptions to easily convert errors to thrown
exceptions, into a state where those who don't want to use exceptions are
forced to use them.  Again, it's entirely fair that we disagree...

Zeev