Re: Re: RFC: Replacing errors with Exceptions

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 23:17, Markus Fischer<markus@fischer.name> wrote: > Hannes Magnusson wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 20:28, Joey Smith<joey@joeysmith.com> wrote: >>> However, now that it's come up, I'm wondering what the costs/risks are >>> of setting libxml_use_internal_errors() on by default? >> >> I don't think thats a good idea. >> People are used to getting a warning when stuff fails, and suppressing >> them all of the sudden is not cool and people will waste a good chunk >> of time figuring out what is wrong with the script they are developing >> and eventually find out libxml_use_internal_errors() is enabled by >> default and they'll start flaming the list about how much we all suck. > > Observing the thread, I totally agree to that. In my case I've "been > there, done that" and although I flamed at the beginning why I can't > catch the error properly (until I found the said function :) ), you can I just realized we don't link to that function from the simplexml docs. I'll add some "see also" links and add an "errors" section mentioning it too. -Hannes