Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85632
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.213.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+9eiLv620K5Jfab9Omoy=MKbF4=1NHCm3-wh9cASifqZATpdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+kxMuTh4haa=wF8h_gMp+cMocK3sG8sxwZnG=NHCORKi41TYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLvH_1itW9fVsv_FoX+MXuWz18XLQvELEimuaoPgAAGBVA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+kxMuQPoDDv8CDmCJhiiPJ+rRs0nYFQxy=ZPVWfP-YqFb0Nuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLsd_i4UNCBGOM=ZUM-MN+CS26cSd2zTD-dHJ4iAm3F=GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c_u=zMAnGijUAw8aFa5XB=-WK+4Rn1KEa4LMunxVQ3M8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLvTQ-4Dc5wcXCYouE0fE3Ls8CmZOSWB9xGXd5XHkpNOrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+kxMuSyBun+vr=OXBzNEpoHHvtDthJnteERHknmdGRVGZk0tg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLv620K5Jfab9Omoy=MKbF4=1NHCm3-wh9cASifqZATpdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 12:12:46 +0300
Message-ID: <CA+9eiLsic3yqYiqFxoU3fZyRD3JfkuO=VELHSq6orakc3LCscg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1136b57452ae2f0512a61e46
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] Constructor behaviour of internal classes
From: dmitry@zend.com (Dmitry Stogov)

--001a1136b57452ae2f0512a61e46
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

committed into master.
Dan, please update the RFC accordingly.

Thanks. Dmitry.

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dmitry,
>>
>> Your approach is definitely a better one, and I have no objection to
>> it whatsoever.
>>
>
> Your patch was quite good. You just didn't know what this NULL return
> required a hack in the PHP core :)
>
>
>>
>> Sorry, I was too busy to look deeply at each class but I can't see any
>> problems.
>>
>
> Great.
>
> Nikita, do you like me to commit this PR or will you take care about it?
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>
>
>>
>> Nikita Popov wrote:
>> > does that mean that the same code using strict_types=1 mode will start
>> > throwing TypeException instead of whatever exception type is passed
>> > to replace_error_handling?
>>
>> That's going to affect everything isn't it - not just this RFC?
>>
>> However I think that is the correct behaviour. It more closely
>> resembles the behaviour that will be seen in userland code, and is
>> more 'semantically' meaningful i.e. it allows people to tell the cases
>> between the two types of errors apart.
>>
>> It probably bears more thinking about though.
>>
>> cheers
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> $formatInfoList = [
>>     ["en_US", "{0,number,integer} monkeys on {1,number,integer} trees
>> make {2,number} monkeys per tree"],
>>     ["en_US", '{this was made intentionally incorrect}'], //valid type
>> but wrong value
>>     ["en_US", new StdClass] //wrong type
>> ]
>>
>>
>> foreach ($formatInfoList as $formatInfo) {
>>     list($locale, $pattern) = formatInfo;
>>     try {
>>         $mf = new MessageFormatter($locale, $pattern);
>>         echo $mf->format(array(4560, 123, 4560/123));
>>     }
>>     catch(IntlException $ie) {
>>          // A strict type-est person would not want this to catch the
>> case where
>>          // the wrong type has been passed, as it's not an exception
>> related to Intl
>>          // it's an exception related to the type being wrong.
>>     }
>> }
>>
>
>

--001a1136b57452ae2f0512a61e46--