Re: Reclassify E_STRICT notices

On Sun, 22 Feb 2015, Nikita Popov wrote: > I would like to propose reclassifying our few existing E_STRICT > notices and removing this error category: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reclassify_e_strict > > As we don't really have good guidelines on when which type of error > should be thrown, I'm mainly going by what category other similar > errors use. I'm open to suggestions, but hope this will not > deteriorate into total bikeshed. Those guidelines where part of the original proposal though: http://grokbase.com/t/php/php-internals/06aq0a1vzx/rfc-e-deprecated Which interestingly mentions your "Abstract static methods" case. And I did write something up (with my opinions of it): http://derickrethans.nl/erecoverableerror.html In any case, some comments on a few of the cases: "Redefining" a constructor - I think that should be retained (or an E_NOTICE) as it's something that might catch people out. I think it helps enough to warrant it. "Same (compatible) property in two used traits" - I think that should be changed to an E_NOTICE, or not at all, if it's already an E_NOTICE. For a similar reason as above. "Accessing static property non-statically" - I think this should stay E_STRICT, as it falls in the original proposal's category of "any rule that reflects common strict standards, like OOP theory that is considered harmless if not followed" cheers, Derick