On 26 August 2010 16:38, Patrick ALLAERT wrote:
> 2010/8/26 Richard Quadling :
>> With all of "I thought this sort of stuff was for Friday's only"
>> comments being made, I think
>> E_ALL_AND_I_REALLY_REALLY_REALLY_DO_MEAN_ALL would be the most useful.
>
> Sorry to contradict you, but the most use
2010/8/26 Richard Quadling :
> With all of "I thought this sort of stuff was for Friday's only"
> comments being made, I think
> E_ALL_AND_I_REALLY_REALLY_REALLY_DO_MEAN_ALL would be the most useful.
Sorry to contradict you, but the most useful would be that:
error_reporting(E_CHUCK_NORRIS);
would
On 25 August 2010 23:51, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>
>> Stas,
>>
>> Having E_FORTY_TWO would be super-useful ;-)
>>
>>
> offtopic:
> shouldn't be that E_ANSWER_TO_LIFE_UNIVERSE_AND_EVERYTHING?
> maybe we should set E_ALL for 42 too. :)
>
> -1
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Stas,
>
> Having E_FORTY_TWO would be super-useful ;-)
>
>
offtopic:
shouldn't be that E_ANSWER_TO_LIFE_UNIVERSE_AND_EVERYTHING?
maybe we should set E_ALL for 42 too. :)
-1 for E_DEVELOPMENT E_PRODUCTION E_EVERYTHING
+1 for the E_NONE
+
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Stas,
>
> Having E_FORTY_TWO would be super-useful ;-)
FOURTY! Only to annoy all English teachers out there :)
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing
Stas,
Having E_FORTY_TWO would be super-useful ;-)
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Rhetorical question: Why do we need constants when the values never
>> change? :)
>
> You seriously don't know why one needs constants or don't see a difference
> between constant
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Tyler Lawson wrote:
> In short, I don't want to see "error_reporting(E_NONE | E_ERROR);" in
> anybody's PHP code. Even if it is harmless.
What I don't want to see is "E_NONE" as a string [1].
Also people, why does every little detail like a goddamn constant
pote
David Zülke wrote:
>
> That's because you're doing it wrong:
>
> error_reporting(E_NONE | E_ERROR);
>
> - David
>
>
You're correct that I did it wrong and I apologize. Your example is how
it would be properly written out and it would work the way the
programmer expects it.
My point was tha
Hi
2010/8/24 Adam Harvey :
> Kalle also suggested another constant within that request to provide a
> symbolic version of error_reporting = -1, so there's a second patch in that
> report to add an E_EVERYTHING constant which acts as E_ALL once did: it
> turns on all error reporting.
On a personal
On 25.08.2010, at 15:51, Tyler Lawson wrote:
> Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
>
>> So nobody will use E_DEVELOPMENT or E_NONE or whatever. We can only add
>> options to PHP that offer choices to developers. If they do not use
>> them ... what can we do?
>>
>
> As a regular user of PHP, I like the id
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> So nobody will use E_DEVELOPMENT or E_NONE or whatever. We can only add
> options to PHP that offer choices to developers. If they do not use
> them ... what can we do?
>
As a regular user of PHP, I like the idea of E_DEVELOPMENT and
E_PRODUCTION. They're clear an
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> On 08/25/2010 03:38 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> Nobody uses the recommendation in the two php.inis.
>
> So nobody will use E_DEVELOPMENT or E_NONE or whatever. We can only add
> options to PHP that offer choices to developers. If they do
On 08/25/2010 03:38 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> Nobody uses the recommendation in the two php.inis.
So nobody will use E_DEVELOPMENT or E_NONE or whatever. We can only add
options to PHP that offer choices to developers. If they do not use
them ... what can we do?
--
Sebastian Bergmann
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> On 08/25/2010 03:07 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
>> Don't we already have this with the default two php.inis we have in some
>> form?
>
> Yes, we do. And I, for one, also do not see the point for new E_*
> constants.
Nobody uses the reco
On 08/25/2010 03:07 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> Don't we already have this with the default two php.inis we have in some
> form?
Yes, we do. And I, for one, also do not see the point for new E_*
constants.
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal Consultant
http://seb
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Adam Harvey wrote:
> I'd be happy enough with E_DEVELOPMENT instead of E_EVERYTHING. The
> point is that everything should be on — we should be encouraging
> developers to fix up E_STRICT notices as well as the usual array of
> things E_ALL shows.
Don't we already have this w
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 18:49 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
>>>
>>> Johannes has pointed out on IRC that E_NONE does already exist in some
>>> projects, so that's an argument against it.
>>
>> Yeah, I did a quick code
Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 18:49 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
Johannes has pointed out on IRC that E_NONE does already exist in some
projects, so that's an argument against it.
Yeah, I did a quick code search, which gave some results defining a
constant with that name. This me
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Avoiding-Magic-Constants.aspx
I'm sorry, I could not resist.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Giovanni Giacobbi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:14:05AM -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > >use an E_ constant with error_reporting" and not have the curre
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:14:05AM -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> >use an E_ constant with error_reporting" and not have the current
> >situation where sometimes you use a constant (or constants) and
> >sometimes you use a bare number, depending on what you want to
> >achieve.
>
> What's w
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 22:23 +0400, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
> The only downside is, that programmer will need to know, that E_*
> constants do mean numbers.
> With adding E_NONE this knowledge would be unnecessary and people
> would be able just to think in terms of abstract "symbols"
Users should
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> use an E_ constant with error_reporting" and not have the current
>> situation where sometimes you use a constant (or constants) and
>> sometimes you use a bare number, depending on what you want to
>> achieve.
>
> What's wrong with
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 18:49 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
> Johannes has pointed out on IRC that E_NONE does already exist in some
> projects, so that's an argument against it.
Yeah, I did a quick code search, which gave some results defining a
constant with that name. This means adding this in 5.3 wo
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> use an E_ constant with error_reporting" and not have the current
>> situation where sometimes you use a constant (or constants) and
>> sometimes you use a bare number, depending on what you want to
>> achieve.
>
> What's wrong with
Hi!
use an E_ constant with error_reporting" and not have the current
situation where sometimes you use a constant (or constants) and
sometimes you use a bare number, depending on what you want to
achieve.
What's wrong with using 0? 0 means "nothing", how hard is that? `
--
Stanislav Maly
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Rhetorical question: Why do we need constants when the values never
>> change? :)
>
> You seriously don't know why one needs constants or don't see a difference
> between constant E_WARNING equal to 8 and constant E_NONE meaning "not
On 25 August 2010 01:47, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> You seriously don't know why one needs constants or don't see a difference
> between constant E_WARNING equal to 8 and constant E_NONE meaning "nothing"
> and equal to 0? How about having constants ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR? Just in
> case, won't hurt
Hi!
Rhetorical question: Why do we need constants when the values never change? :)
You seriously don't know why one needs constants or don't see a
difference between constant E_WARNING equal to 8 and constant E_NONE
meaning "nothing" and equal to 0? How about having constants ONE, TWO,
THRE
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> http://bugs.php.net/52563 suggests adding an E_NONE constant (set to 0) to
>> go with the various other E_* constants we have. I've hacked up a quick
>
> I'm kind of confused - why we need E_NONE? In case value of 0 should ever
> change?
R
Hi!
http://bugs.php.net/52563 suggests adding an E_NONE constant (set to 0) to
go with the various other E_* constants we have. I've hacked up a quick
I'm kind of confused - why we need E_NONE? In case value of 0 should
ever change?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://
On 24 August 2010 21:46, Pierre Joye wrote:
> I don't see it as an argument against as the fix is rather easy:
>
> if (!defined('E_NONE')) {
> ...
>
> But it should not be added in a minor release.
Agreed. To be clear: the patch is against trunk, and I wouldn't
suggest it even be considered for 5
hi,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
> http://bugs.php.net/52563 suggests adding an E_NONE constant (set to 0) to
> go with the various other E_* constants we have. I've hacked up a quick
> patch against trunk (attached to the report) that would add that, but don't
> have Zen
Folks,
http://bugs.php.net/52563 suggests adding an E_NONE constant (set to 0) to
go with the various other E_* constants we have. I've hacked up a quick
patch against trunk (attached to the report) that would add that, but don't
have Zend karma to add it, so I'll open it up to the floor: (a) shou
33 matches
Mail list logo
