Re: [PEPr] -1 for RFC::Error Handling Guidelines for

Justin Patrin wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:00:54 +0100, Sergio Carvalho <sergio.carvalho@portugalmail.com> wrote:

It's a moot discussion. For good and evil, the RFC has been approved, following the standard procedure for PEAR. This is the basis for work we have now, so let's build on it and correct where needed. There's much work to be done defining warnings, and this should start with a package proposal -- unlike exceptions, warnings will require some infrastructure, and naturally there are lots of design possibilities.

[snip] A package proposal?? ErrorStack is already done and in PEAR. All of the comments I've seen on warnings advocate the stack method, or at least multiple warnings "at once", so the stack would work for it.

I think at least a name change is in order. From the ammount of confusion between error handling and warning handling I've tried to clear in the last couple of weeks, naming the default warning class PEAR_ErrorStack would mean eternal damnation to the hell of newbie FAQ answering. I've already said that I think PEAR_ErrorStack fits the bill nicely, exposing the required features for a Warning class. It needs a nice cleanup to remove stuff not necessary (already handled by the exception classes) and then a tutorial for it. The tutorial may as well be the base doc for the warning RFC -- much as the exception wiki started with a tutorial on exceptions. Cheers, Sérgio

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc