Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80726 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 58827 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2015 06:32:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Jan 2015 06:32:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@tekwire.net; spf=softfail; sender-id=softfail Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@tekwire.net; sender-id=softfail Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain tekwire.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@tekwire.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:19413] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A4/D6-18613-6935BB45 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 01:32:56 -0500 Received: from moorea (unknown [82.240.16.115]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 789414B0117; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 07:30:26 +0100 (CET) Reply-To: To: "'Andrea Faulds'" Cc: "'Dan Ackroyd'" , References: <003201d0326b$6fd27f60$4f777e20$@tekwire.net> <23490588-0131-4B0F-A7AA-C9C8C766626C@ajf.me> In-Reply-To: <23490588-0131-4B0F-A7AA-C9C8C766626C@ajf.me> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 07:32:50 +0100 Message-ID: <006a01d032e8$953bf380$bfb3da80$@tekwire.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQFhYE8a1kvkTW+sIcCGIio0m9gpNQEGpFCBAfDKmZWdi1P9cA== Content-Language: fr X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150117-1, 17/01/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Class constructor behaviour From: francois@tekwire.net (=?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=) > De : Andrea Faulds [mailto:ajf@ajf.me] > > I don=E2=80=99t really agree here. For some reason we have this = tradition of not using > exceptions for =E2=80=9Cprocedural=E2=80=9D stuff. That sort of makes = sense for functions, but > classes are =E2=80=9COOP=E2=80=9D and therefore I don=E2=80=99t see a = good reason why they > shouldn=E2=80=99t throw exceptions. Exceptions and OOP (and = namespaces, even) > should not be the domain of userland exclusively, they are also the = domain > of internals/core. If you really hate exceptions, I=E2=80=99d say you = should just use > one of those ridiculous =E2=80=9Cprocedural=E2=80=9D alternative = functions (that are just > methods in disguise) that we went to the bother of adding. I agree. I just remembered that, in in the past, every proposal which = included exceptions in the core were discarded. I also would prefer = exceptions to this old error system. If minds (or people) have changed, = that's a very good thing. Fran=C3=A7ois