Re: [VOTE] Allowing use of exceptions in the engine

On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Zeev! > > I think this is a misunderstanding... I'm not suggesting to simply let the > engine continue after an E_ERROR - as you pointed out, that would likely > just crash it a few lines further down. > > This RFC is mainly a policy RFC: The goal is to allow the use of > exceptions in the engine and to allow changing existing fatal errors to > exceptions. The change from fatal errors to exceptions needs to happen > manually, by adjusting the surrounding code to support continued execution > (usually that means freeing resources + returning). A lot of fatal errors > are easy to change, others are very hard or impossible. Changing fatal > errors to exceptions rather than recoverable errors is both more useful to > the end user and technically easier (as recoverable errors need to continue > execution in the same codepath, which is often a lot harder to implement > and find appropriate semantics for), which is why I'm suggesting this > particular course of action. > > So, basically what I'm suggest is what you say in the last paragraph, just > going directly to exceptions rather than converting to E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR > :) > > Hope this is a bit clearer. > OK, got you. Not using exceptions in the engine was also a design decision (so that we don't force OO concepts on non-OO people) - need to think if it still makes sense and get back to the vote. Thanks! Zeev