Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84669
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOsHV+uApxF=pQngonMppam2AEnW0Sm1ESAaB9exLH0K0hMBWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <54FF8CED.5030701@gmail.com> <CAOsHV+sdkSnrB_ZSHE1T81rnBt1K58-_fOzt6-kjHpghmjV5kA@mail.gmail.com>
 <54FFC96D.6090004@gmail.com> <1579682575.9673.1426064704052.JavaMail.open-xchange@app06.ox.hosteurope.de>
 <55000A88.1030909@lsces.co.uk> <CAOsHV+sZbE3EMvxTe4esXaUebcA+GKnYbDLEdo8ZXXwY6UJBdg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOsHV+sZbE3EMvxTe4esXaUebcA+GKnYbDLEdo8ZXXwY6UJBdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:02:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CACwt+Je7mH0YWsFWL9+Lh9=nZmGUn8hRrJGmRk1wHtAnoeEJNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: marcio3w@gmail.com, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01493f60aad443051127c22e
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count
From: patrickallaert@php.net (Patrick ALLAERT)

--089e01493f60aad443051127c22e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Le mer. 11 mars 2015 =C3=A0 22:44, Marcio Almada <marcio.web2@gmail.com> a
=C3=A9crit :

> 2015-03-11 6:27 GMT-03:00 Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>:
>
> > On 11/03/15 09:05, wp12173047-156224 wp12173047-156224 wrote:
>
> > Most of the examples being shown are examples of simple bad programming
> > practice that needs fixing anyway, and I would expect a proper code
> > review to have picked them up, so don't see that adding the check in PH=
P
> > is essential. It would however be a useful addition but in the E_STRICT
> > category ... not that I want to maintain that, but being able to ignore
> > those errors until such time as it is appropriate to fix them.
>

I don't really see how this favors E_STRICT over E_NOTICE as any of this
type of errors can be displayed/hidden independently.


> I think this is a valid argument to keep the E_STRICT error level option
> for the secondary voting.
> That's a very useful information, thanks :)
>

It also depends on your perception of E_STRICT. This level has been
introduced in 5.0 without being part of E_ALL in order to, among other
things, avoid too much pain in the *** while migrating from 4.x to 5.x.
As of 5.4, E_ALL contains E_STRICT and the difference between E_STRICT and
E_NOTICE/E_WARNING is certainly not in terms of severity.
Using an undefined variable or property =3D> notice.
Trying to get property of non-object =3D> notice.
Use of undefined constant =3D> notice

For this reason, I think we should use the standard notice/warning/error
levels as much as possible. You may take a look at Nikita's "Reclassify
E_STRICT RFC" for more info about it.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reclassify_e_strict

Cheers,
Patrick

--089e01493f60aad443051127c22e--