At 10:40 03/08/2006, Pierre wrote:
Hello,
On 8/3/06, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this particular case I think it should be possible to mark
certain internal
> methods as strict and keep userspace methods loose.
But I would like to see atleast an e_strict warning of signatures are
violated to give atleast the options to be strict and get warnings for
it. I am pretty sure Edin doesn't give a **** about e_strict warnings...
so that will work fine. I think that Zeev suggested something like this.
For what I understand (and agree), he meant the other way 'round.
Users who like strictness will have to use an extra keyword in the
declaration. Users who don't care will not have to change anything in
their (working) code.
Actually no, what Derick said is what I meant.
I think emitting an E_STRICT notice on violation of a signature is a
very reasonable compromise between the loose and strict worlds. It's
not scientifically proven, but I very much believe that there's very
strong mapping between those who care about these signatures and
those who have E_STRICT enabled. I don't see why we need to add any
new modifiers, loose or strict.
Zeev
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
