Re: exceptions instead of errors

On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 10:12 PM, John Coggeshall wrote:

However, Shane rightly pointed out that the issue with that solution was that although some E_ERRORs could be considered "recoverable" and an exception would make sense, there are some E_ERRORs which simply should cause execution to halt.

These should be E_CORE_ERRORs most likely and not be thrown. This error type already exists and is used throughout the engine.

Since the idea of figuring out which E_ERRORs were catchable and which ones were not was unreasonable, the thought was that the creation of a separate error type that was functionality identical to E_ERROR could be created. This way internally new code could throw exceptions, and it would provide a means for maintainers to roll-into the idea of having exceptions in established extensions without causing any shake-up.

The vast majority of E_ERRORs are recoverable. There's no BC issue either, do to the arguments posted elsewhere by me, Marcus, Sterling and others. It's really transparent from a BC issue.