"Rowan Collins" wrote in message news:54e32caa.5030...@gmail.com...
Tony Marston wrote on 17/02/2015 09:59:
"Rowan Collins" wrote in message news:54e1c993.1070...@gmail.com...
Tony Marston wrote on 16/02/2015 10:09:
This RFC only mentions errors with object methods, so what impact would
it have with procedural functions. For example, if
fopen('nonexistantfile.txt') fails the return value is FALSE and an
E_WARNING is generated, but it is difficult to trap the error message
(it could be a permissions error, for example). Is there any plan to
convert procedural functions to throw exceptions?
As Nikita already said:
This RFC is strictly about fatal and recoverable fatal errors. Changing
any
other error types to exceptions would be a significant
backwards-compatibility break.
So, no, since that's currently an E_WARNING, there is no current plan to
change that case to an exception. If we were writing fopen() from
scratch now, it might be worth considering, but the BC implications of
changing something from non-fatal to fatal are rather drastic.
That has absolutely nothing to do with OO vs procedural code, though. A
procedural function could well have an error condition which should be
fatal if unhandled, but can usefully be caught somewhere up the stack,
which is basically what an exception is for. Any procedural function
which currently issues an E_ERROR or E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR is a candidate
to be converted under the current RFC.
Regards,
The reason that I mentioned this problem with fopen() - the difficulty
with capturing the error message if it fails - is that it also exists
with some other functions as well, so it would be nice to be able to put
the function in a try ..... catch block so that any and every message
could be made available. It is quite obvious that changing fopen() to use
exceptions would be a major BC break for all exiting applications, so my
question is this:
Would it be possible to tell the function if it were being called in a
try ... catch bloc or not? If it were then throw an exception, if not
then don't throw an exception. I realise that this might be tricky to
implement, but if it could be it would allow the developer to choose
whether he/she wanted to use exceptions or not instead of having the
choice forced upon him/her.
Is this possible? Or am I just dreaming?
The point of exceptions is that they don't have to be caught in the current
scope. So is the below fopen() call "in a try ... catch block" for the
purposes of that check, or not? If putting try { ... } around an entire
application caused all calls to fopen(), in every library it used, to stop
returning false, you'd have exactly the same BC issue as just changing it
permanently.
function foo() {
try
{
$data = load_data();
}
catch ( ... ) { ... }
}
function load_data() {
$fh = fopen(...);
...
}
So no, I'm afraid it's probably not possible.
Regards,
Could it be restricted to the current scope? In your example the call to
fopen() exists in the load_data() function and is not in a try ... catch
block within *that* function, so the fact that the call to load_data() is
within a try ... catch block should be irrelevant as it is in a different
scope.
--
Tony Marston
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
