I know what the manual says about notices. But I don't agree with interpreting "could happen in the normal course of running a script" as "it's perfectly fine if this part of your code triggers a notice consistently and every time it goes down this particular code path". Rather, I've always interpreted this as "under certain, rare, unforeseen circumstances, your code could generate a notice here, probably because of something that is outside of your control".
That's how I've always treated them at least. Regardless of the exact semantics, don't you think a program that generates a constant stream of notices is a bit strange? That sounds like something everyone would naturally want to avoid. You don't drive your car with the check engine light permanently on and say "this is fine", right? On 29.08.19 14:43, Claude Pache wrote: Le 29 août 2019 à 13:33, Aegir Leet via internals <internals@lists.php.net<mailto:internals@lists.php.net>> a écrit : I'm sorry, but if you seriously believe doing something that generates a notice (or warning, or error, ...) is not a bug - you're delusional. No, what you think is not at all how notices were designed. From the manual (https://www.php.net/errorfunc.constants): E_NOTICE — Run-time notices. Indicate that the script encountered something that could indicate an error, but could also happen in the normal course of running a script. One can discuss whether unitialised variables should trigger a notice or a warning. But let us respect the semantics of the language features. —Claude
