Re: Re: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2(PHP_5_3) / zend_execute.c zend_vm_def.h zend_vm_execute.h
| From: | Marcus Boerger | Date: | Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:17:45 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2(PHP_5_3) / zend_execute.c zend_vm_def.h zend_vm_execute.h | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-39385@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hello Lukas,
Sunday, July 27, 2008, 12:00:55 PM, you wrote:
> On 27.07.2008, at 02:58, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>> Hello Internals,
>>
>> apparently overloaded objects do not need to implement property
>> access
>> and we issue an E_NOTICE in case someone tries to none-the-less.
>> Dmirty
>> thankfully made this consistent for all handlers now. However this
>> raised a
>> question on my side, whether we should increase the severity to
>> E_WARNING
>> or even better E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR. To me the latter choice makes
>> the most
>> sense as trying to is most likely a severe issue in the software. For
>> example someone create a database abstraction and then for a new db
>> that
>> has a C level implementation that allows to use the classes directly,
>> probably a third party implementation, the properties are not
>> implemneted.
>> Since the tests were done using the other one errors due to property
>> handling are probably noticed too late. And in the described situation
>> anyway are clear errors rather than notices. And I cannot figure an
>> example
>> where it wouldn't be the case.
> You know I am generally wary of using error levels that are higher
> than necessary just to beat people with a stick that they are coding
> themselves into a corner. This is what we have E_STRICT for and people
> that want to do the right thing can use an error handler to make sure
> they change their code to do the right thing.
E_STRICT is for you can but you shouldn't. Here we speak about something
that cannot be done.
Best regards,
Marcus