On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Marco Pivetta <ocram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I voted "NO" due to previous discussion. TL;DR: this is FAR off the 80/20 > use-case for a language syntax change. > > ... > These 3 exceptions usually result in separate handling anyway. If same > handling is needed, you can as usual extract a private method (if you are > in a class) and deal with it there: > > ... > Still, even in this case, I'd flag it up in a code review, as same handling > for 3 different exception types generally (not always) means something is > really wrong. > > So we are building a feature for a 1% case that, while simple to implement > at parser-level in PHP, requires changes in all userland libraries that do > parsing or rely on the AST. > I agree: the times this need arises are relatively rare, and in those cases functional encapsulation cleanly handles the repetition. I would vote no, were it not for one thing: union types <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/union_types>. catch constitutes a formal signature, exactly like a function signature. In my mind, this proposal and the union types proposal are intrinsically tied. If we have one, we must have the other. If not, we're inducing a sadness. Since I do see the need for union types, and since I believe the two must be accepted or rejected together, I voted yes.
