Re: Adding `class UnsupportedOperationException extends RuntimeException` to php?
| From: | Jordan LeDoux | Date: | Wed, 02 Mar 2022 23:48:49 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Adding `class UnsupportedOperationException extends RuntimeException` to php? | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-117230@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 5:42 AM Tim Düsterhus, WoltLab GmbH <
duesterhus@woltlab.com> wrote:
> Hi Tyson
>
> On 2/13/22 16:50, tyson andre wrote:
> > Currently, there doesn't seem to be an exact fit for indicating that a
> method isn't supported on an object by design (and will throw
> unconditionally).
> > (For example, when implementing an interface or overriding a base class,
> e.g. an Immutable datastructure not implementing offsetSet/offsetUnset,
> > an object that does not support serialization and overrides
> __serialize/__unserialize to forbid it, etc.)
> >
> > […]
> >
> > Thoughts on adding UnsupportedOperationException to the spl?
> >
>
> The "Redacting parameters in back traces" RFC has the same issue for the
> SensitiveParameterValue::__unserialize() method [1] which is not
> supported by design.
>
> In userland I'd commonly use BadMethodCallException for this purpose,
> but thinking about it: A
LogicException is not really fitting
> for the
> reasons you outlined.
>
> UnsupportedOperationException sounds like a useful addition to me.
>
>
I like this idea, however I think something other than 'Operation' should
be used. Perhaps it is due to all the work on my recent RFC, but to an
'Operation' implies an 'Operator'.
-Jordan