Re: [VOTE] Reclassify E_STRICT notices

Hello Pierre, Am 16.03.2015 um 02:34 schrieb Pierre Joye: > "Some of the strict standards notices are converted to an error > category that is considered more severe. As such error handlers might > treat it more severely, resulting in BC breakage." > > Does it mean that some errors may end on recoverable error? Aka, an > actual break, or simply a higher error level, a warning in the worst > case? in the "Proposal" section the RFC states: "The following section lists all strict standards notices currently in use (with code sample and error message) as well as the proposed resolution and the reasoning behind it." And then follow the actual changes: Indexing by a resource => E_NOTICE Abstract static methods => Remove notice "Redefining" a constructor => obsolete Signature mismatch during inheritance => E_WARNING Same (compatible) property in two used traits => Remove notice Accessing static property non-statically => E_NOTICE Only variables should be assigned by reference => E_NOTICE Only variables should be passed by reference => E_NOTICE Calling non-static methods statically => E_DEPRECATED So the RFC should not introduce a fatal error or something not catchable by a custom error handler. Greets Dennis