Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76191
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain thekid.de from 212.227.126.187 cause and error)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 10:56:05 +0200 (CEST)
Reply-To: Timm Friebe <php@thekid.de>
To: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <1290246035.235053.1406451366002.open-xchange@oxbaltgw02.schlund.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAGa2bXZU9ro-O=CJf0sWRhCA+dQOHiXRXorbcDXdJhrvhv-gDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <801311915.137460.1404038401570.open-xchange@oxbsltgw54.schlund.de> <CAGa2bXZU9ro-O=CJf0sWRhCA+dQOHiXRXorbcDXdJhrvhv-gDQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Importance: Medium
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] RFC: Catchable "call to a member function of a
 non-object"
From: php@thekid.de (Timm Friebe)

Hello,
=C2=A0

> Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> hat am 27. Juli 2014 um 10:11 geschrieb=
en:
>
>=C2=A0 Hi Timm,
>
>=C2=A0 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Timm Friebe <php@thekid.de
><mailto:php@thekid.de> > wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 a couple of weeks ago, I proposed a change =
to the handling of the
>situation
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 where methods are called on non-objects. Instead of an E_E=
RROR, the
> >engine would
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 raise an E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR, and enable framework and lib=
rary authors to
> >handle
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 this.
[...]
>
>=C2=A0 I like the idea.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>=C2=A0 Only thing that I don't like is it depends on error message to be u=
seful
>=C2=A0 rather than error code/status. Was this discussed? Just curious.

No, this wasn't discussed so far. You're right, this could make the code in=
side
the error handler more readable and robust. It would mean, however, changin=
g all
the other E_RECOVERABLE_ERRORs too, like argument type mismatching and cert=
ain
closure and generator operations; and thus was out of scope.

I remember this from a couple of years back though; but can't recall why it=
 was
never done.

-Timm