Hi Timm, On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Timm Friebe <p...@thekid.de> wrote:
> > Only thing that I don't like is it depends on error message to be useful > > rather than error code/status. Was this discussed? Just curious. > > No, this wasn't discussed so far. You're right, this could make the code > inside > the error handler more readable and robust. It would mean, however, > changing all > the other E_RECOVERABLE_ERRORs too, like argument type mismatching and > certain > closure and generator operations; and thus was out of scope. > > I remember this from a couple of years back though; but can't recall why > it was > never done. Looking forward new RFC. We are better to have cleaner API. Optional parameter for user defined error handler is adequate, probably. Addition to error context is the cleanest, perhaps. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net
