At 11:10 22/09/2006, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Michael Wallner wrote:
> [ ] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
> [X] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
> [ ] ( 0) what the hell are you talking about?
It's not necessarily a *strict* OO implementaiton though, it's one that
is correct. Strictness is where we would disallow setting object
properties on the fly while not declaring that. I would actually like to
see that throwing an e_strict too as that would make debugging easier as
well. however, in the case of signatures you *have* to be strict ... but
I guess we would only see the full implications if you're very well
versed with OO theory (definitely not saying that I am).
I think it's exactly the same thing as setting object properties on
the fly - both can cause problems with certain OO-based
theories/algorithms. Whatever we call it (strictness, correctness) -
it's pretty much the same.
I think we need a fourth option in the poll - keep the error as
E_STRICT and nothing more (also in future versions). That would get my vote.
Zeev
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
