On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote:
>
> On 26 Aug 2014, at 00:53, Benjamin Eberlei <kont...@beberlei.de> wrote:
>
> > Depends, registering for shutdown handlers and catching fatals is a
> pretty
> > common thing. If EngineException does not get caught, it should produce
> an
> > E_FATAL again with the correct error code.
>
> Exceptions already do this, do they not? I don’t see why those exceptions
> would be any different.
>
people have code out there like this:
try {
//something stupid
} catch (Exception $e) {
//do nothing or maybe log it
}
if we turn fatal errors into Exceptions extending the base Exception class,
these Pokémon constructs ("Gotta Catch 'Em All") will will swallow those
errors and contrinue the execution, maybe causing more dangerous
results(data corruption, etc.) than a simple fatal error could.
But these issues was discussed before, so I'm fairly sure that Nikita is
aware of those concerns, and let's just wait for him to update his proposal
and we can discuss it after it's ready.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
