On 22 October 2013 10:32, Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org> wrote: > On 10/22/2013 06:20 PM, Adam Harvey wrote: >> I agree that something to replace the eval-based assert() would be >> good. What if the new syntax simply respected assert_options(), and >> assert_options() was extended to support an explicit ASSERT_EXCEPTION >> control option (that presumably took an exception class name as its >> option value)? That seems like it would provide the exception based >> possibilities that some posters want while maintaining the same >> assertion behaviour that users are already used to by default. > > I'm a bit perplexed at the need to retain any compatibility with what is a > poor implementation ?
To be fair, I think part of the disconnect here is that I don't feel like the current implementation is particularly poor besides the eval-based API. I don't really want an assertion failure to throw an exception — if I did, I'd use an assert callback or ErrorException to do that. I want it logged so I can look at it later, and that's easily configured with the current assertion setup. I guess I'm wondering if there's a middle ground here, rather than throwing the assertion baby out with the bathwater in favour of an entirely new thing that could simply be syntax sugar sprinkled over an existing, working implementation. Adam -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
