Re: Vision of PEAR interop (was Re: PEAR_Warning proof of concept)

Justin Patrin wrote:

Now that I've played devil's advocate, I'd like to say that I'm not actually decided on this issue. I like the elegance and simplicity of just throw new PEAR_Exception, but I don't see any problem with an extra call that would increase flexibility and leave those who don't want to use it alone, apart from making them use the extra call.

I guess I don't see it as increasing flexibility, because very quickly it will lead to inconsistency. That is the main point about inclusion w/ non PEAR code; it's not that the other code will break it's that the feature will no longer apply -- and if you try to use it then you'll get a half-working system that would be more confusing than before. It adds flexibility of a certain kind, but it adds complexity and makes it much easier for people to shoot themselves in the foot. As Sergio suggested, this isn't a huge problem. Let's vote on issues like this later after getting the stuff that we agree on documented in the exception use guidelines doc. I don't really think that the demand exists for this feature anyway. We'll see. Hans