Re: Re: [patch] error masks

Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > On 25.08.2009, at 00:54, Greg Beaver wrote: > >> 1) if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, >> do we still have to put up with the performance loss? >> 2) as long as the patch does not break any backwards compatibility >> (error logging still works as it always did independent of error_mask, >> user error handlers still get the same stuff), why would we care? There >> is a time and place for being academic about fixing things and it is >> called development, not production. > > > If you have bugs in production, you sure as hell want to know about .. > and encouraging people to ignore them is a recipe for disaster. > Stats "@fopen()" example is perfect here, so lets say we do add this > feature and people simply turn of error's entirely so that they can > instead write "fopen()", they feel all good about themselves, since they > handle the error locally and get a magical speed boost (noticeable or > not) .. all the while they are ignoring all sorts of E_NOTICES that > would indicate them that they have some serious security issues. > > Again, I am all for being able to totally ignore E_STRICT/E_DEPRECATED > in production .. but there is a time for fixing E_NOTICES .. and that > time is always! I don't see how this has anything to do with the patch in question. You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't let people turn off E_NOTICE in production. How is that related to the patch? -Rasmus