Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83752 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 74382 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2015 09:32:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Feb 2015 09:32:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:52080] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 63/82-62407-DB69DE45 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 04:32:45 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6279410C040; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:32:42 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:32:42 +0000 (GMT) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Nikita Popov cc: PHP internals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Reclassify E_STRICT notices From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Sun, 22 Feb 2015, Nikita Popov wrote: > I would like to propose reclassifying our few existing E_STRICT > notices and removing this error category: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reclassify_e_strict > > As we don't really have good guidelines on when which type of error > should be thrown, I'm mainly going by what category other similar > errors use. I'm open to suggestions, but hope this will not > deteriorate into total bikeshed. Those guidelines where part of the original proposal though: http://grokbase.com/t/php/php-internals/06aq0a1vzx/rfc-e-deprecated Which interestingly mentions your "Abstract static methods" case. And I did write something up (with my opinions of it): http://derickrethans.nl/erecoverableerror.html In any case, some comments on a few of the cases: "Redefining" a constructor - I think that should be retained (or an E_NOTICE) as it's something that might catch people out. I think it helps enough to warrant it. "Same (compatible) property in two used traits" - I think that should be changed to an E_NOTICE, or not at all, if it's already an E_NOTICE. For a similar reason as above. "Accessing static property non-statically" - I think this should stay E_STRICT, as it falls in the original proposal's category of "any rule that reflects common strict standards, like OOP theory that is considered harmless if not followed" cheers, Derick