Re: [RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count
| From: | Patrick ALLAERT | Date: | Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:14:38 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-84684@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Le ven. 13 mars 2015 à 14:39, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk> a écrit :
> On 13/03/15 09:02, Patrick ALLAERT wrote:
> > It also depends on your perception of E_STRICT. This level has been
> > introduced in 5.0 without being part of E_ALL in order to, among other
> > things, avoid too much pain in the *** while migrating from 4.x to 5.x.
> > As of 5.4, E_ALL contains E_STRICT and the difference between E_STRICT
> > and E_NOTICE/E_WARNING is certainly not in terms of severity.
> > Using an undefined variable or property => notice.
> > Trying to get property of non-object => notice.
> > Use of undefined constant => notice
> >
> > For this reason, I think we should use the standard notice/warning/error
> > levels as much as possible. You may take a look at Nikita's "Reclassify
> > E_STRICT RFC" for more info about it.
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/__reclassify_e_strict
> > <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reclassify_e_strict>
>
> I think the main point here is just like the PHP4->5 conversion path,
> SOME areas that need upgrading should be flagged by default while others
> should be able to be hidden until they need to be addressed. Perhaps
> E_STRICT7 off by default, but if all of the 4->5 conversion stuff is now
> reclassified then E_STRICT should be available to serve the same purpose
> it did back then?
>
This is the subject I discussed this morning in the "Reclassify E_STRICT
notices" thread: http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=142623927703931
Yet another level would probably be a mistake. So I wish we could try
working on a way to easier the conversion path using a pattern that can be
repeated over the time.