Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97300 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 54480 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2016 03:02:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Dec 2016 03:02:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ohgaki.net designates 180.42.98.130 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: yohgaki@ohgaki.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 180.42.98.130 ns1.es-i.jp Received: from [180.42.98.130] ([180.42.98.130:54736] helo=es-i.jp) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id BF/6A-11772-C5A26485 for ; Mon, 05 Dec 2016 22:02:53 -0500 Received: (qmail 95477 invoked by uid 89); 6 Dec 2016 03:02:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-wj0-f171.google.com) (yohgaki@ohgaki.net@209.85.210.171) by 0 with ESMTPA; 6 Dec 2016 03:02:48 -0000 Received: by mail-wj0-f171.google.com with SMTP id tg4so51447350wjb.1 for ; Mon, 05 Dec 2016 19:02:48 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC004iOgYMt238yC4+RfheU8CJ81oy0BetBABcAMDbfkPk0vIOKpEm+IcqmgSsps/nbuq8+4Fiufh18to1A== X-Received: by 10.194.231.8 with SMTP id tc8mr51784369wjc.193.1480993362246; Mon, 05 Dec 2016 19:02:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.38.7 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 19:02:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 12:02:01 +0900 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Levi Morrison Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] User defined session serializer From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki) Hi Levi, On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Levi Morrison wrote: >>> These are not consistent with return type checking. This *must* reuse >>> the error checking that is already in-place and not provide something >>> new to accomplish the same thing. >> >> What do you mean by inconsistent? > > We do not use E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR for return type mismatches; we use > TypeError. That is the inconsistency. It depends. Session module uses errors rather than exceptions. Mixing them is inconsistent for a module. I wrote I prefer exceptions and I'll handle error handling issue (error -> exception) with other RFC during discussion. So don't worry about it for now. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net