# Flamewar Summary Conclusion - Thread: https://externals.io/message/23576 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/23576 - Started by Ilia Alshanetsky on 2006-05-19T14:15:40+00:00 - Messages: 8 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #23576 — Ilia Alshanetsky — 2006-05-19T14:15:40+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/23576#23576 I'd like to thank everyone for voting on the topic and making their opinions known. The conclusion is that: `E_STRICT` will not be a part of E_ALL, however `E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR` will be, this means no "new" errors will appear for current user, as `E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR` is similar to what `E_ERROR` was in earlier releases. So the only affect is that value numeric value of `E_ALL` is greater then it was before. Marcus has already applied patch to this affect a few days ago (Thanks!). On the topic of "dynamic statics" the conclusion is that we do not want this in PHP 5.2 and people who need equivalent functionally can use class static vars that are arrays. Ilia Alshanetsky Advanced Internet Designs Inc. ilia@prohost.org --- ## #23579 — Brian Moon — 2006-05-19T15:00:39+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/23576#23579 · In reply to: #23576 Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > So the only affect is that value numeric value of `E_ALL` is greater then > it was before. Marcus has already applied patch to this affect a few > days ago (Thanks!). This needs to be made obvious in the release notes or something. Users that set their error level in apache will use a numeric value and not the constants. That is the only way to change the value for an entire virthost. -- Brian Moon ------------- http://dealnews.com/ Its good to be cheap =) --- ## #23580 — Ilia Alshanetsky — 2006-05-19T15:38:32+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/23576#23580 · In reply to: #23579 I'll add a note about it to the 5.2 README file. > Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > > […] > > This needs to be made obvious in the release notes or something. > Users that set their error level in apache will use a numeric value > and not the constants. That is the only way to change the value > for an entire virthost. > > -- > > Brian Moon > ------------- > http://dealnews.com/ > Its good to be cheap =) > > -- > > > > Ilia Alshanetsky Advanced Internet Designs Inc. ilia@prohost.org --- ## #23581 — Steph Fox — 2006-05-19T16:10:16+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/23576#23581 · In reply to: #23580 Back to my original (off-list) question - what happens if people don't have `E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR` level error reporting switched on? Does it fall back to `E_ERROR` or does the code fail silently? > I'll add a note about it to the 5.2 README file. > > > > > > […] --- ## #23582 — Ilia Alshanetsky — 2006-05-19T16:40:47+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/23576#23582 · In reply to: #23581 When `E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR` is triggers and not handled, it gets translated to an `E_ERROR` "Catchable fatal error...". > Back to my original (off-list) question - what happens if people > don't have `E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR` level error reporting switched on? > Does it fall back to `E_ERROR` or does the code fail silently? > > > […] > > Ilia Alshanetsky Advanced Internet Designs Inc. ilia@prohost.org --- ## #23583 — Steph Fox — 2006-05-19T16:46:35+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/23576#23583 · In reply to: #23582 Cool. I just had a horrible vision of hundreds of reports of 'strange crashes' :) > When `E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR` is triggers and not handled, it gets translated > to an `E_ERROR` "Catchable fatal error...". > > > > > > […] > > Ilia Alshanetsky > Advanced Internet Designs Inc. > ilia@prohost.org --- ## #23585 — Markus Fischer — 2006-05-19T21:23:32+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/23576#23585 · In reply to: #23580 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Is there an "UPGRADING 5.1 to 5.2"? I think there it would make sense, too. - - Markus Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > I'll add a note about it to the 5.2 README file. > > > > > > […] > > Ilia Alshanetsky > Advanced Internet Designs Inc. > ilia@prohost.org > > -- > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEbjdU1nS0RcInK9ARAndWAKDOqlZWv4TOYMhj778qn84C0oqdvwCdERYG WlyJ8rxP5b/Ht0xmrMzj594= =CZ2b -----END PGP SIGNATURE --- ## #23586 — Marcus Boerger — 2006-05-19T22:38:28+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/23576#23586 · In reply to: #23585 Hello Markus, the question alone makes me question if it was worth the effort starting it :-) best regards marcus Friday, May 19, 2006, 11:23:32 PM, you wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > Is there an "UPGRADING 5.1 to 5.2"? I think there it would make sense, too. > - - Markus > Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > > […] > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > iD8DBQFEbjdU1nS0RcInK9ARAndWAKDOqlZWv4TOYMhj778qn84C0oqdvwCdERYG > WlyJ8rxP5b/Ht0xmrMzj594= > =CZ2b > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Best regards, Marcus