Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85755 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 38619 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2015 13:12:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 Apr 2015 13:12:26 -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] ([217.147.176.214:53514] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id BA/11-31311-8BA76255 for ; Thu, 09 Apr 2015 09:12:25 -0400 Received: (qmail 22888 invoked by uid 89); 9 Apr 2015 13:12:21 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 22882, pid: 22885, t: 0.1023s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52/d:10677 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.8?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@109.156.131.40) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 9 Apr 2015 13:12:21 -0000 Message-ID: <55267AB5.9050207@lsces.co.uk> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:12:21 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 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] Exception message cleanup From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 09/04/15 13:55, Nikita Popov wrote: >> I like the new display format, but there's one thing I miss. If you >> > replace the exception name for warnings and fatals, how does a user know >> > which exception he has to catch? > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. The first part of the message > says which exception you need to catch, right? Nikita is just voicing the same question as Patrick ... While you are quite correct that the new exception is listed, it now requires that all of the automatic processing knows about every new exception in order to pick them up. What I think both are saying is it needs some of the old wrapper ... especially when the new exception may not even be a public one? -- 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