Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92584 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 31884 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2016 00:34:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Apr 2016 00:34:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; 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] ([217.147.176.214:37077] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 19/DA-14036-82028175 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 20:34:49 -0400 Received: (qmail 12876 invoked by uid 89); 21 Apr 2016 00:34:46 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 12869, pid: 12872, t: 0.0651s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52/d:10677 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.7?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@81.138.11.136) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 21 Apr 2016 00:34:46 -0000 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <5717D70E.5010706@lsces.co.uk> <5717E02C.9030505@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57182026.3030901@lsces.co.uk> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 01:34:46 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5717E02C.9030505@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Quick sanity check ... From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 20/04/16 21:01, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> The outcome is easy to grasp. Because it did not crash by a TypeError >> > (which would also require the file to be declared as strict), and we lost >> > 100k in sales. But PHP does not need more strictness... > In other words, somebody wrote code that is supposed to only accept ints > but does no checks. Somebody wrote tests that actually don't test > anything. Somebody signed off on code that was not properly designed or > tested to go into production. And the language is to blame. Right. I was thinking "so no one thought to check that the number was the right size?" ... type checks are pointless if you can't even validate the data ... -- 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