Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84684
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.181 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>
 <CACwt+Je7mH0YWsFWL9+Lh9=nZmGUn8hRrJGmRk1wHtAnoeEJNQ@mail.gmail.com> <5502E878.30901@lsces.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <5502E878.30901@lsces.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:14:38 +0000
Message-ID: <CACwt+JcTPbtUr_w9omBj84qkoKG0Cf4VqRJns9vUALnZ-UpkVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>, marcio3w@gmail.com
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d0f48f669b405112c1e1a
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count
From: patrickallaert@php.net (Patrick ALLAERT)

--089e013d0f48f669b405112c1e1a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Le ven. 13 mars 2015 =C3=A0 14:39, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk> a =C3=
=A9crit :

> 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 =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/erro=
r
> > 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
> > <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?
>

This is the subject I discussed this morning in the "Reclassify E_STRICT
notices" thread: http://marc.info/?l=3Dphp-internals&m=3D142623927703931

Yet another level would probably be a mistake. So I wish we could try
working on a way to easier the conversion path using a pattern that can be
repeated over the time.

--089e013d0f48f669b405112c1e1a--