Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72532
Return-Path: <cryptocompress@googlemail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 79041 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2014 22:13:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 12 Feb 2014 22:13:28 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cryptocompress@googlemail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cryptocompress@googlemail.com; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 209.85.214.42 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cryptocompress@googlemail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.214.42 mail-bk0-f42.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.214.42] ([209.85.214.42:52207] helo=mail-bk0-f42.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 60/EA-19387-702FBF25 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:13:27 -0500
Received: by mail-bk0-f42.google.com with SMTP id 6so2898044bkj.1
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:13:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlemail.com; s=20120113;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=dKS6DTOaPL05xAmzorqHHzSTVLc78Qon/peXlCC4Bnk=;
        b=kHJPzXTVVOhEeVsgyvgaFaptByDcX+oaBNzXCCL96N0qtp9nSxBlKmkcoFLTMvXm0R
         2uAiUndwbfCXSnPfgzrl1qLbzKZWvY4W6PUnQyvszqCL/PCoK09Nu9q1JG4ksw58nm+K
         PZ/qv6MV9HBMmy5mKYnL8WRqliAw0ln4Xf0p2nGZIS27mFs6YQ2rb2irrcSNZXTGZTZE
         9ArGrdWEttYpwXkrsEY/oEI3OdpUiqqOWUrMOAETBTW70wOOBkK6fd0kXPM5x/WjcqWu
         CbP+W8ZPUep+zFbInkfOuQoRA/DuDugyiMHRgJNSYK6UrgC5b2WD0vb23TP1D3jWKg6l
         odFQ==
X-Received: by 10.204.167.81 with SMTP id p17mr19584bky.59.1392243203489;
        Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:13:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.115] (mnch-5d872b07.pool.mediaWays.net. [93.135.43.7])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ch4sm115071bkc.8.2014.02.12.14.13.21
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:13:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52FBF1EE.8050902@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:13:02 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
CC: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAESVnVq3PB+OFXGR+yJ1L2BuX_4+pHyjjvJ8rZXnxexXozyT4A@mail.gmail.com>	<CAGfRu7Ot_sNhvQY1b18Wb-7UB3uihXsSXPVb=cHhEhA0s4ijVQ@mail.gmail.com>	<52F00437.7010903@googlemail.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.10.1402111838010.5374@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>	<52FA71FE.8060808@googlemail.com>	<1392151967.3990.11.camel@guybrush>	<52FA90B3.5040205@googlemail.com>	<1392153156.3990.13.camel@guybrush>	<52FA99C4.5080006@googlemail.com>	<1392155891.3990.15.camel@guybrush>	<52FA9FD3.6000008@googlemail.com> <CAESVnVrB2OaAuLW5bA7B8S1rJSM371U+x1kEtNbdcaPw_3f85w@mail.gmail.com> <52FBDC4D.9020302@googlemail.com> <52FBE7FD.3050003@gmail.com> <52FBED22.4010706@googlemail.com> <52FBF0D7.2020704@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52FBF0D7.2020704@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] __debugInfo()
From: cryptocompress@googlemail.com (Crypto Compress)

Am 12.02.2014 23:08, schrieb Rowan Collins:
> Crypto Compress wrote (on 12/02/2014):
>>
>>> It still feels to me that someone debugging the implementation of 
>>> the object, rather than its interaction with the system, would have 
>>> plenty of opportunity to by-pass / remove the hook anyway.
>>
>> What about a phar?
>
> My point was that if you're debugging the *implementation*, you're 
> going to be looking at the source tree, not the distribution.
>
> If you're looking at a distributed version, your main interest is in 
> how to *use* the objects, which the maintainer can give you hints for 
> via __debugInfo()
>
>
>> It's not easy nor fast to change X times __debugInfo() methods.
>
> True. I can't really picture somebody adding carefully crafted methods 
> to every class they write, though; more likely, it will be defined in 
> some ancestor class, or maybe even a trait, so you'd change it there, 
> and the whole object graph would go back to "normal".
>
> I guess generated code might include it, but then you'd probably have 
> the option of re-generating it without (again, if you were interested 
> in the *implementation* of the objects, rather than just the *use* of 
> them).
>
> Regards,

some cool ideas worth spreading :)