Le ven. 13 mars 2015 à 14:39, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> a écrit :
> On 13/03/15 09:02, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: > > It also depends on your perception of E_STRICT. This level has been > > introduced in 5.0 without being part of E_ALL in order to, among other > > things, avoid too much pain in the *** while migrating from 4.x to 5.x. > > As of 5.4, E_ALL contains E_STRICT and the difference between E_STRICT > > and E_NOTICE/E_WARNING is certainly not in terms of severity. > > Using an undefined variable or property => notice. > > Trying to get property of non-object => notice. > > Use of undefined constant => notice > > > > For this reason, I think we should use the standard notice/warning/error > > levels as much as possible. You may take a look at Nikita's "Reclassify > > E_STRICT RFC" for more info about it. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/__reclassify_e_strict > > <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reclassify_e_strict> > > I think the main point here is just like the PHP4->5 conversion path, > SOME areas that need upgrading should be flagged by default while others > should be able to be hidden until they need to be addressed. Perhaps > E_STRICT7 off by default, but if all of the 4->5 conversion stuff is now > reclassified then E_STRICT should be available to serve the same purpose > it did back then? > This is the subject I discussed this morning in the "Reclassify E_STRICT notices" thread: http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=142623927703931 Yet another level would probably be a mistake. So I wish we could try working on a way to easier the conversion path using a pattern that can be repeated over the time.
