Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84968 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 42956 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2015 02:17:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Mar 2015 02:17:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=dennis@birkholz.biz; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=dennis@birkholz.biz; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain birkholz.biz does not designate 144.76.185.252 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: dennis@birkholz.biz X-Host-Fingerprint: 144.76.185.252 mx01.nexxes.net Received: from [144.76.185.252] ([144.76.185.252:41687] helo=mx01.nexxes.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 7E/CC-06614-23D36055 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:17:23 -0500 Received: from [137.226.183.192] (ip3192.saw.rwth-aachen.de [137.226.183.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: db220660-p0g-1@packages.nexxes.net) by mx01.nexxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7B24480B1C for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 03:17:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <55063D2F.9050601@birkholz.biz> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 03:17:19 +0100 Reply-To: internals@lists.php.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Reclassify E_STRICT notices From: dennis@birkholz.biz (Dennis Birkholz) Hello Pierre, Am 16.03.2015 um 02:34 schrieb Pierre Joye: > "Some of the strict standards notices are converted to an error > category that is considered more severe. As such error handlers might > treat it more severely, resulting in BC breakage." > > Does it mean that some errors may end on recoverable error? Aka, an > actual break, or simply a higher error level, a warning in the worst > case? in the "Proposal" section the RFC states: "The following section lists all strict standards notices currently in use (with code sample and error message) as well as the proposed resolution and the reasoning behind it." And then follow the actual changes: Indexing by a resource => E_NOTICE Abstract static methods => Remove notice "Redefining" a constructor => obsolete Signature mismatch during inheritance => E_WARNING Same (compatible) property in two used traits => Remove notice Accessing static property non-statically => E_NOTICE Only variables should be assigned by reference => E_NOTICE Only variables should be passed by reference => E_NOTICE Calling non-static methods statically => E_DEPRECATED So the RFC should not introduce a fatal error or something not catchable by a custom error handler. Greets Dennis