Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94095
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain kelunik.com from 81.169.146.218 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEbg-4Y=DaJogK+EO8dH2x59Ak_vugwXxm4M4hPw4sgtSNqmug@mail.gmail.com>
 <2635b3b6-b971-9fb7-5def-26b86eafb54d@fleshgrinder.com> <CANUQDCiYhbyUBX-NTYTJ67er2h6VoqT88zUvhePNY8Q9bSxJJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <b87d8499-7575-435d-5ab6-fc0bd629e3ae@fleshgrinder.com> <CANUQDCgQBmvDJJnA6qMMi83TXzSi97eFUJY+2vSDOkJKXuc-ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEbg-4aOf1opjUHJkMPERahcG2+8yYLNDzr4NO9siY7jxtcOUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEbg-4YDOfUbR=skupt1LV3+07X-ocjtHxMqpKpaqbLtku6dJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <98f97016-066e-b5a4-8d1d-4bca179315fa@gmx.de> <CANUQDCjz1RwNddF0rB_pgudKuNiZNn2R1JtDAJkG8=x1iC6BGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ff9cc21d-6b77-2f91-6838-39d9c89f057e@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <ff9cc21d-6b77-2f91-6838-39d9c89f057e@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:32:10 +0000
Message-ID: <CANUQDCjXfS571tguNqoQyXPwkZ-fiTGtEP+=5bee15Wc1o7yZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>
Cc: Alexander Lisachenko <lisachenko.it@gmail.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d4fc25bab2805357f40d8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Throwing an Error for require expressions in PHP7.x
From: me@kelunik.com (Niklas Keller)

--047d7b5d4fc25bab2805357f40d8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> If something is required, one cannot do without it, so there's only one
> course of action, namely to bail out.


What about gracefully bailing out, like showing that composer dependencies
have to be installed?

It's just like a method call. Usually you expect a return value, unless
there's an exception.


> In my opinion, this is the least
> surprising way to handle missing required files, especially as it always
> has been that way (consider the potential BC break).
>

As already pointed out, there's no BC break, except for catch 'em all. It's
also not surprising,
as require + parse error already throws an error instead of stopping with a
fatal error.

It's surprising that this one still fatals.


> Or do you really prefer to be able to do
>
>     try {
>         require $fileName;
>     } catch (Error $e) {
>         echo "Oops, maybe deleted? " . $e;
>     }
>     functionDefinedInFileName();
>

Yes, I really prefer that. Not that code exactly, but being able to write:

try {
  require $config;
} catch (ParseError $e) {

}


> and get a fatal error that function no() is undefined?  I'd rather get a
> fatal error that the required file couldn't be opened in the first place.
>
> If, however, a file is not strictly required, one can (and in my
> opinion, should) `include` the file.  And yes, there's no absolutely
> failsafe way to do this without risking a warning or using the @
> operator, but that affects other filesystem functions (e.g.
> file_get_contents() and fopen()) as well.  Frankly, I can't see a single
> good reason to replace the fatal error with an exception for require,
> but leave include etc. alone.  And if include would throw an exception,
> I don't see the use of changing require at all.
>
> --
> Christoph M. Becker
>

--047d7b5d4fc25bab2805357f40d8--