Hello Melvyn, Tuesday, December 2, 2003, 10:53:17 AM, you wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 December 2003 09:18, Derick Rethans wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Melvyn Sopacua wrote: >> > On Monday 01 December 2003 23:27, Derick Rethans wrote: >> > > > I don't quite understand the problem. E_STRICT was only meant for >> > > > people who really want to be pedantic. I think we can make it not >> > > > part of E_ALL. Is that OK? >> > > >> > > SOunds good to me, -Wall with gcc doesn't show all errors either... I >> > > feel it's very close to this. >> > >> > If you're going to do this, then do it backwards compatible and 'leave' >> > E_ALL at 2047 and move E_STRICT to 2048. >> > Many apache administrators will thank you for this ;) >> >> E_STRICT already is 2048... it's just that E_ALL shouldn't include it. > Good - I was kinda afraid it would be some hack, that changed the value of > E_ALL regardless. > How about E_PEDANTIC being E_ALL | E_STRICT? Sounds logical to me. This sounds like a good approach to me (at leat it is named like what it is). -- Best regards, Marcus mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
