Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83229
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPwsocFVrMgu_HSJoDqLUS7=6VDgyRcvVz2sJ9xiG=k1-pg1pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL=_i_mdb1GvYFZr1ZEqvCgZ3+um-ZYuz5xAFZuwjwBcXsEk3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU6b4Uvmc9XyCNRaQh1Va4N=-TQRC-YZUTv1cUNPyu+Lnw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLtvPj7h_Yrmck5h1yvePJhnpbO5Jtbaj35=wjJJ1U+AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7Tws=wdh854F7GizFjZon+xZJ2ruKRH7DGP3cWUcKvhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU4x+LHdxZX2BuKSvpsWSH--FsR0S6=YTGbq+1uMBJCxxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPwsocFVrMgu_HSJoDqLUS7=6VDgyRcvVz2sJ9xiG=k1-pg1pg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:34:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU5aeecFYTYEFqkz6eO5D6+RjDEMvmp5kGEDH5KC=VGfKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leigh <leight@gmail.com>
Cc: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Expectations
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Leigh <leight@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 February 2015 at 15:45, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Still, no announce for a discussion about this specific RFC. And
>> really, the content of the RFC is almost empty, pointing to the ML
>> archive is really not the right way :)
>
> There was an RFC announce thread 3 days ago. I agree 3 days is a short
> period of time, but the announce thread existed. Maybe it was a reply
> to DbC with a changed subject and your mail client didn't show it as
> new? I don't know, there was definitely a thread though.

I mentioned that thread in my comment. It is still way behind what
should be done when creating a new RFC,  let alone pushing it to the
vote phase.

> On 19 February 2015 at 16:06, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I like the concept and idea but still not sure about the custom
>> exception vs AssertException.
>
> Looking at the implementation, it seems that the custom exception
> still has to descend from AssertException
>
> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1088/files#diff-232f2dffbb06c0b6004724d8a498e7e7R248
>
> That seems like a good restriction to me. You can still catch
> everything with AssertException but you can make it more specific if
> you want.

I did not comment on what should be done, while I do consider this
open question as a blocker to actually take a good decision for this
RFC. I do think it should be discussed, answered and voted either at
the same time or before this RFC.

-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org