There isn't legitimate technical justification for or against using custom exceptions.
Since it's entirely based on preference, and the kind of utilitarian argument you can make for their use, it's acceptable that this is resolved as part of the vote. It's not a huge deal. Cheers Joe On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Leigh <lei...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 19 February 2015 at 15:45, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Still, no announce for a discussion about this specific RFC. And > >> really, the content of the RFC is almost empty, pointing to the ML > >> archive is really not the right way :) > > > > There was an RFC announce thread 3 days ago. I agree 3 days is a short > > period of time, but the announce thread existed. Maybe it was a reply > > to DbC with a changed subject and your mail client didn't show it as > > new? I don't know, there was definitely a thread though. > > I mentioned that thread in my comment. It is still way behind what > should be done when creating a new RFC, let alone pushing it to the > vote phase. > > > On 19 February 2015 at 16:06, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I like the concept and idea but still not sure about the custom > >> exception vs AssertException. > > > > Looking at the implementation, it seems that the custom exception > > still has to descend from AssertException > > > > > https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1088/files#diff-232f2dffbb06c0b6004724d8a498e7e7R248 > > > > That seems like a good restriction to me. You can still catch > > everything with AssertException but you can make it more specific if > > you want. > > I did not comment on what should be done, while I do consider this > open question as a blocker to actually take a good decision for this > RFC. I do think it should be discussed, answered and voted either at > the same time or before this RFC. > > -- > Pierre > > @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org >
