Re: [VOTE] Expectations
| From: | Joe Watkins | Date: | Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:24:39 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [VOTE] Expectations | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-83319@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
> So it is fine to have one setting doing the exact same thing? Sorry, I
> disagree. We know we need that in other areas. Like other recent RFCs,
> we have solved them bottom-up. This one is no different.
It's fine for an RFC to be focused on one thing. This is another subject.
> So basically what you say is that this RFC, relying on things we
> should clarify and define clearly so it will be consistent across the
> engine and language, are not relevant to this RFC? I totally disagree
> and hence my point that this RFC needs more (public) discussions and
> things that are prerequisites for this RFC should be designed,
> discussed and implemented before this RFC.
I'm saying that this isn't a subject for this RFC, deciding if we're going
to have multiple exception trees is simply not in scope.
> I will certainly be the only one voting no at this stage, or maybe not
> even voting because I simply feel like you discussed that already no
> matter where and came to this RFC and say take it or leave it. I am
> not a fan of this approach or we can rename "Request For Comments" to
> "Request to Accept" as any kind of comments or feedback is simply not
> taken into accounts.
I'm sorry that you don't remember the discussion, but it did happen, the
RFC has been in (more or less) it's current form for more than a year.
The current form *is the result of discussion*.
Please stop saying it hasn't been discussed, it has, a lot.
Cheers
Joe
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Crypto Compress <
cryptocompress@googlemail.com> wrote:
> To be harsh: All comments in favour of throwing exceptions here,
> substantiate theirs needs with dead, never reached and potentially buggy
> code.
> The *changed code flow in production* is the big pitfall of this RFC and
> an absolute no-go. I like zero-cost assertions but throwing exceptions is
> wrong.
>
> my 2 cents
>
>
> ...exceptions are not used by default...
>>
>
> Can't find this point in RFC.
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>