Re: [VOTE] (was: Parameter checking in 5.2)

At 11:10 22/09/2006, Derick Rethans wrote:

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Michael Wallner wrote: [ ] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again [X] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation [ ] ( 0) what the hell are you talking about? It's not necessarily a *strict* OO implementaiton though, it's one that is correct. Strictness is where we would disallow setting object properties on the fly while not declaring that. I would actually like to see that throwing an e_strict too as that would make debugging easier as well. however, in the case of signatures you *have* to be strict ... but I guess we would only see the full implications if you're very well versed with OO theory (definitely not saying that I am).

I think it's exactly the same thing as setting object properties on the fly - both can cause problems with certain OO-based theories/algorithms. Whatever we call it (strictness, correctness) - it's pretty much the same. I think we need a fourth option in the poll - keep the error as E_STRICT and nothing more (also in future versions). That would get my vote. Zeev