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

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Zeev Suraski wrote: > 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. As long as we then implement E_STRICT for all the other times where we are "breaking" OO design that would work. regards, Derick