Re: some questions on PEAR_Error usage

[Oyvind Moll <oyvindmo@initio.no>] > On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 09:31:14AM -0400, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote: > | [Steven Haryanto <steven@haryan.to>] > | > > | > 1. Should I create my own "exception" type subclassing from > | > PEAR_Error. [...] > | > | Normally you won't need to subclass PEAR_Error. The cases I can think > | of is where you only want the concept of an error code (like in DB), > | or if you want to report a lot of extra information. > > Yes, indeed. E.g. I like being able to see a kind of call stack that led > to an error, and have done some crude and ugly subclassing of PEAR_Error to > accomplish this in the past. Has anyone else experimented with this and > arrived at a clean-ish solution? Yes, and no, I'd love a call-stack too. The last time I checked, Zend doesn't keep a call stack. Has anyone tried the Zend IDE debugger, does it have stack traces? - Stig -- Stig Sæther Bakken <ssb@fast.no> Fast Search & Transfer ASA, Trondheim, Norway