Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85043 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 1625 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2015 12:29:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Mar 2015 12:29:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=markus@fischer.name; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=markus@fischer.name; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain fischer.name from 62.179.121.43 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: markus@fischer.name X-Host-Fingerprint: 62.179.121.43 fep23.mx.upcmail.net Solaris 10 (beta) Received: from [62.179.121.43] ([62.179.121.43:43375] helo=fep23.mx.upcmail.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 17/86-03331-09CC6055 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 07:29:05 -0500 Received: from edge02.upcmail.net ([192.168.13.237]) by viefep23-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.8.01.05.13 201-2260-151-135-20130320) with ESMTP id <20150316122346.IZKS6477.viefep23-int.chello.at@edge02.upcmail.net> for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:23:46 +0100 Received: from mail02.home ([213.47.1.174]) by edge02.upcmail.net with edge id 4CV81q01Z3lFLNl01CV86Y; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:29:09 +0100 X-SourceIP: 213.47.1.174 Received: from mail02.home ([192.168.1.14] helo=lv426.local) by mail02.home with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YXU8h-0003Ts-SB for internals@lists.php.net; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:29:00 +0100 Message-ID: <5506CC8B.8020304@fischer.name> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:28:59 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <5505CFD2.5010609@beccati.com> <5506C1ED.6080102@beccati.com> In-Reply-To: <5506C1ED.6080102@beccati.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam_score: -2.9 X-Spam_score_int: -28 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "scanner01.home", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Matteo, On 16.03.15 12:43, Matteo Beccati wrote: > On 15/03/2015 19:30, Matteo Beccati wrote: >> In PHP4 times it was in fact quite common to change inherited method >> signatures to bend them to one's will and/or remove parameters and >> hardcode them in the parent constructor call. We now know it is bad >> practice, but I bet there's lot of code using these practices in >> controlled situations. >> >> I'm going to attempt fixing the app code (including the bundled pear >> libs) and report back. > > So... I've spent a few hours on the cleanup and I'm still far from > getting a green build. > > As you mentioned in the RFC, turning E_STRICT into E_WARNING is going to > be a BC-break for someone, and fixing this one in particular requires > far more effort than a simple search/replace. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Reclassify E_STRICT notices From: markus@fischer.name (Markus Fischer) Hi Matteo, On 16.03.15 12:43, Matteo Beccati wrote: > On 15/03/2015 19:30, Matteo Beccati wrote: >> In PHP4 times it was in fact quite common to change inherited method >> signatures to bend them to one's will and/or remove parameters and >> hardcode them in the parent constructor call. We now know it is bad >> practice, but I bet there's lot of code using these practices in >> controlled situations. >> >> I'm going to attempt fixing the app code (including the bundled pear >> libs) and report back. > > So... I've spent a few hours on the cleanup and I'm still far from > getting a green build. > > As you mentioned in the RFC, turning E_STRICT into E_WARNING is going to > be a BC-break for someone, and fixing this one in particular requires > far more effort than a simple search/replace. am I correct assuming that your existing test suite was running with E_STRICT excluded from error_reporting ? thank you, - Markus