Since this would throw exceptions, could it look like (or be) a final/abstract (although PHP doesn't allow that combo for some reason) class with static methods?
Assert::isTrue($expr, $msg); That syntax is already valid (so of course there are BC issues) and I don't know how practical it is to optimize that away to nothing, but it would be more consistent with regard to throwing exceptions and would allow for a variety of different class methods. -- Matthew Leverton On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Joe Watkins <krak...@php.net> wrote: > On 10/20/2013 12:15 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Robert Stoll <rst...@tutteli.ch> wrote: >> >>> Heya, >>> >>> I do not know how much it concerns this RFC but I came across the >>> following >>> page about an extension named "Expect" when I was searching for RFC >>> Expect >>> with google. >>> http://php.net/manual/en/book.expect.php >>> >>> I suppose there would be a name clash between the extension and the new >>> expect keyword. I do not know how internals usually deal with such >>> problems, >>> especially if it is within an extension, but I am sure someone will know >>> it. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Robert >>> >>> >> it was discussed on irc, there is not problem here, because the ext name >> and the function name can't clash, and the ext doesn't have a function >> with >> the name of expect, so everything is fine afaik. >> > > Rasmus has pointed out that there is an expect:// stream wrapper. > > So looks like we need a new name ?? Ideas ?? > > > Cheers > Joe > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
