Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84682 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 28505 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2015 13:39:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Mar 2015 13:39:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.214 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.147.176.214 mail4-2.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [217.147.176.214] ([217.147.176.214:39662] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A4/35-32208-B78E2055 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:39:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 8350 invoked by uid 89); 13 Mar 2015 13:39:04 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 8340, pid: 8345, t: 0.1186s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52/d:10677 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.8?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@86.189.147.37) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 13 Mar 2015 13:39:04 -0000 Message-ID: <5502E878.30901@lsces.co.uk> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:39:04 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patrick ALLAERT , marcio3w@gmail.com CC: PHP internals References: <54FF8CED.5030701@gmail.com> <54FFC96D.6090004@gmail.com> <1579682575.9673.1426064704052.JavaMail.open-xchange@app06.ox.hosteurope.de> <55000A88.1030909@lsces.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 13/03/15 09:02, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: > 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 => notice. > Trying to get property of non-object => notice. > Use of undefined constant => 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 > I think the main point here is just like the PHP4->5 conversion path, SOME areas that need upgrading should be flagged by default while others should be able to be hidden until they need to be addressed. Perhaps E_STRICT7 off by default, but if all of the 4->5 conversion stuff is now reclassified then E_STRICT should be available to serve the same purpose it did back then? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk