Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84176
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: julienpauli@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1502250923320.5941@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
References: <CAF+90c-YX6tN63JwwWzn-WH2og2uffjR2YrL_JXsYKSjrQFS1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1502250923320.5941@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 19:13:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMUwpuSVxX3oneAQx2QS_970y9SizvfdJytS8MBykyvCCs96GA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3843a7db5e00510522e27
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Reclassify E_STRICT notices
From: jpauli@php.net (Julien Pauli)

--001a11c3843a7db5e00510522e27
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:

> 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"
>
>
I'm not against removing E_STRICT and reclassifying the errors, however,
like Derick , I'd like to keep the trait and redefining constructor ones as
they may really help to spot problems.

About the accessing static property non statically, I would have thrown an
E_ERROR : the property simply doesn't exist. Class properties should be
accessed using the class, not an instance of it , IMO.



Julien.P

--001a11c3843a7db5e00510522e27--