Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:86638
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain belski.net from 85.214.73.107 cause and error)
To: "'Dmitry Stogov'" <dmitry@zend.com>,
	"'Levi Morrison'" <levim@php.net>,
	"'Aaron Piotrowski'" <aaron@icicle.io>,
	"'Nikita Popov'" <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: "'internals'" <internals@lists.php.net>,
	"'Anatol Belski'" <ab@php.net>,
	"'Kalle Sommer Nielsen'" <kalle@php.net>
References: <971AB39D-1E20-43E8-9CF1-A7F67E3C14C3@icicle.io>	<CAGa2bXb8CaJsJorx0HTzSgEeAGXJN7DoW5vi=m+wFiUXNw+tng@mail.gmail.com>	<556363D3.1040902@gmail.com>	<12C3389A-AFF5-42CA-8190-E4227309DAED@icicle.io>	<CAFMT4NppuzY1dhPVcVhFFB-0373AkuB4-dh-mynY0p6R9T76tw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9eiLszbdRS5kKU73HSvvB4zqayS8RKAioX8cJZKqreejKfyQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9eiLszbdRS5kKU73HSvvB4zqayS8RKAioX8cJZKqreejKfyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 18:31:35 +0200
Message-ID: <016201d0a6bf$96e37dc0$c4aa7940$@belski.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0163_01D0A6D0.5A6EE5D0"
Thread-Index: AQFtSLKjM4Kf9ceVOz7o+CSYMVJiZgIhwnePAYrvRlYBpwkcHAJFBRC9Ao7iPHueIasGQA==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Throwable Interface
From: anatol.php@belski.net ("Anatol Belski")

------=_NextPart_000_0163_01D0A6D0.5A6EE5D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Dmitry,

=20

I would go by accepting this. Furthermore =E2=80=93 if you feel that the =
implementation is stable enough and does not BC, I would suggest to have =
it already in the alpha2.

=20

As there seems to be at all no resistance in the votes (no even single =
=E2=80=9Cno=E2=80=9D voter yet),  nor strong objection here on the =
lists. The minimal voting period is 1 week, so theoretically if it were =
ended on Wed  (the voting RFC doesn=E2=80=99t disallow this) =E2=80=93 =
there were still some time to do extensive testing and fixes. Alpha2 is =
the time where a) a lot of users will be able to test it and b) it still =
can be reverted in the worst case.

=20

What do you think?

=20

Regards

=20

Anatol

=20

From: Dmitry Stogov [mailto:dmitry@zend.com]=20
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 9:37 AM
To: Levi Morrison; Aaron Piotrowski; Nikita Popov
Cc: internals; Anatol Belski; Kalle Sommer Nielsen
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Throwable Interface

=20

=20

=20

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net =
<mailto:levim@php.net> > wrote:

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Aaron Piotrowski <aaron@icicle.io =
<mailto:aaron@icicle.io> > wrote:
> Does anyone have any questions, comments, or concerns about the =
Throwable Interface RFC?
>
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/throwable-interface
>
> The proposed exception hierarchy:
>
> interface Throwable
>         =E2=8A=A2 Exception implements Throwable
>         =E2=88=9F Error implements Throwable (replaces =
EngineException)
>                 =E2=8A=A2 TypeError (replaces TypeException)
>                 =E2=88=9F ParseError (replaces ParseException)
>
> I=E2=80=99d like to complete a vote before too many alpha releases are =
made.
>
> I=E2=80=99ll be happy to resolve the merge conflicts in the PR if the =
vote passes.

My only objections have already been raised, but I'll reiterate them =
briefly:

  1. Having both Error and Exception makes little sense, especially
since we have historically used error to refer to an error that wasn't
an exception (something that triggered the error handler).
  2. The name "Error" is going to have a fairly high collision rate
with user code.

=20

I also like EngineException more than Error.

=20

  3. I think they should all use Exception as the root instead having
a new root with multiple children (and yes, I am aware of the impact
of this, and it has already been discussed on this list).

=20

This done on purpose. To prevent catching of new exceptions by old PHP =
code.

If we won't accept this now (before 7.0 release), it would make more =
troubles in the future.

I didn't make deep code review, and don't know all possible =
consequences.

Anyway, I would make a chance to accept this now or never.

RM, your thoughts?

In case we decide to vote for this RFC, I'll make code review and will =
help with possible problems.

=20

Thanks. Dmitry.

=20

=20


--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

=20


------=_NextPart_000_0163_01D0A6D0.5A6EE5D0--