Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77691 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 46607 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2014 01:10:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Sep 2014 01:10:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.115 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.115 smtp115.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.115] ([108.166.43.115:48367] helo=smtp115.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 23/60-38877-771B8245 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:10:16 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp23.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id BE75E280286; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:10:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp23.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 57813280206; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:10:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Id: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com Received: from Stass-MacBook-Pro.local (108-66-6-48.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [108.66.6.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA) by 0.0.0.0:465 (trex/5.2.13); Mon, 29 Sep 2014 01:10:12 GMT Message-ID: <5428B173.8030905@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 18:10:11 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dmitry Stogov , Rowan Collins CC: "internals@lists.php.net" References: <07153B91-E12F-4B16-ADD7-86CFC75C4642@ajf.me> <54220EB4.60001@sugarcrm.com> <6A21F4EF-476E-476C-A64B-246B8929172B@ajf.me> <5422DD87.80109@gmail.com> <568C0F03-B23B-43FC-963D-6D0D23405E9D@ajf.me> <54230209.2050406@sugarcrm.com> <54233C70.3060604@gmail.com> <54236D16.3070401@sugarcrm.com> <54242A0C.3000309@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] ZPP Failure On Overflow From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > May be this overflow checks should be optional? > In old ages compilers for Wirth family languages had option to enable or > disable overflow checks. > If option is enabled we may throw an exception, if no - work as today. > Any user would be able to chose between compatibility and safety. Given that we have l and L in parameter parsing API, it is essentially optional, but the choice is on internals developer. I'm not sure having it as ini value would be the best idea, since behavior-modifying options in the past proved more trouble than they're worth - one more dimension one has to test against. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/