Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83403
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A2.64.08895.E0958E45@pb1.pair.com>
References: <CAF+90c-7w1fLqmffYvPRhmtt8rzESEpSmW8vfMD-YfLt1mG_8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXaxs760ZVGharG2zZizh-+f4S+kiLv5uH4+UeDFZ4rpkA@mail.gmail.com>
	<54E12349.7070806@gmail.com>
	<16.9B.05176.AE1C1E45@pb1.pair.com>
	<54E1C993.1070609@gmail.com>
	<37.20.01961.31113E45@pb1.pair.com>
	<54E32CAA.5030600@gmail.com>
	<C2.98.18888.BEE64E45@pb1.pair.com>
	<54E4FAC2.7060200@gmail.com>
	<E9.64.22021.0E6A5E45@pb1.pair.com>
	<CA+9eiLu634OpuXVT8NnwZwitqc=S4g8UbbMj+coB4nmQcPXRQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<47.89.25547.DD007E45@pb1.pair.com>
	<op.xuco5eutc9evq2@nikita-pc>
	<A2.64.08895.E0958E45@pb1.pair.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 09:06:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU7vt=PpK4p3VFZFLAEPzi_wfr2Hr_av+dtzVD6D2dZCSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11343a4cdcfd5a050f9c2f82
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Exceptions in the engine
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--001a11343a4cdcfd5a050f9c2f82
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Feb 21, 2015 2:08 AM, "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ""Nikita Nefedov""  wrote in message news:op.xuco5eutc9evq2@nikita-pc...
>
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:39:33 +0300, Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. Exceptions were originally invented to solve the
semipredicate problem which only exists with procedural functions, not
object methods. Many OO purists would like exceptions to be thrown
everywhere, but this would present a huge BC break. If it were possible get
these functions to throw an exception ONLY when they are included in a try
... catch block then this would not break BC at all.
>>>
>>
>> Tony, first of all - this still breaks BC, because exception is being
thrown in a place where it used not to be...
>
>
> I disagree. The following function calls would not throw exceptions
>    fopen(...);
>    fwrite(...);
>    fclose(...);
>
> while the following code would:
>    try {
>        fopen(...);
>        fwrite(...);
>        fclose(...);
>    } catch (....) {
>
>        ....
>    }
>
>> When some function's result heavily depends on the context it makes said
function much harder to reason about. And creates mental overhead for those
who'll have to read the code with this function.
>>
>> And again, if you need exceptions for fopen please consider using
SplFileObject.
>
>
> For file usage, yes. But are there any other procedural functions without
an Spl* alternative which would benefit from this technique?

Expected failures should not raise exception. For example, IOs are expected
to fail (be network, filesystem etc), I would really not be in favor of
adding exceptions for similar cases. This is a normal control flow.

--001a11343a4cdcfd5a050f9c2f82--