Add a third php.ini, php.ini-dev
This should have the preferred settings for a development environment
- Davey
Jani Taskinen wrote:
Perhaps you should have noticed that the errors in php.ini-recommended
are logged so whatever the error level is shouldn't matter.
And I don't think
RL>>Because setting E_SCRIPT at runtime is mostly useless as many of the
RL>>E_STRICT checks are compile-time.
auto_prepend?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ +972-3-6139665 ext.115
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To u
At 21:35 18/06/2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
We can provide a suggested .ini for development purposes if you want,
but php.ini-recommended has display_errors off and various other
settings that are more geared to a production web server. I see no
point in having pedantic warnings running on a prod
We can provide a suggested .ini for development purposes if you want,
but php.ini-recommended has display_errors off and various other
settings that are more geared to a production web server. I see no
point in having pedantic warnings running on a production server.
-Rasmus
Jani Taskinen wrote:
An ini file we might provide does not set the defaults.
Try running stuff without any php.ini file..
The error_reporting in a recommended (PHP 5.1!!!) ini
file should be at the "pedantic" level..
--Jani
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Daniel Convissor wrote:
Hi Zeev:
On Sat, Jun 1
Perhaps you should have noticed that the errors in php.ini-recommended
are logged so whatever the error level is shouldn't matter.
And I don't think this file is read-only everywhere? :)
--Jani
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Thanks for spotting that. Not sure how it
Thanks for spotting that. Not sure how it got in there.
I removed E_STRICT from the default error_reporting in php.ini-recommended.
At 01:24 PM 6/18/2005 +0100, Nicholas Telford wrote:
Hello everyone,
It seems that E_STRICT is on by default in php.ini-recommended as of 5.1
I think the real is
Hi Zeev:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 12:59:31PM +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Where do you see that? As far as I can tell it certainly looks off by
> default even in 5.1.
http://cvs.php.net/php-src/php.ini-recommended#rev1.173
That change is still in there as version 1.176, which was used for the
Hello everyone,
It seems that E_STRICT is on by default in php.ini-recommended as of 5.1
I think the real issue here is nothing to do with E_STRICT being too
strict, it does what it says, and as Andi has already said, it's there
as a means of best practice checking for pedantic developers.
T
At 14:39 17/06/2005, Daniel Convissor wrote:
Hi George:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 01:53:29AM -0400, George Schlossnagle wrote:
>
> E_STRICT isn't part of E_ALL and isn't on by default.
Just to be clear, E_STRICT is off by default in 5.0 but on by default in
5.1.
Where do you see that? As far a
Hi George:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 01:53:29AM -0400, George Schlossnagle wrote:
>
> E_STRICT isn't part of E_ALL and isn't on by default.
Just to be clear, E_STRICT is off by default in 5.0 but on by default in
5.1.
--Dan
--
T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N
On Jun 16, 2005, at 10:15 PM, boots wrote:
These answers make me feel as if maybe just a little bit you guys are
looking down your nose at me without really considering the basis of
the issue I am trying to raise. I know the tools well enough to use
E_ALL -- thanks. I'm concerned about end user
These answers make me feel as if maybe just a little bit you guys are
looking down your nose at me without really considering the basis of
the issue I am trying to raise. I know the tools well enough to use
E_ALL -- thanks. I'm concerned about end users who don't know enough to
help themselves -- b
I suggest you use E_ALL.
At 11:50 AM 6/16/2005 -0700, boots wrote:
--- Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You missed the point of E_STRICT. I introduced it as an E_PEDANTIC.
> That was the whole idea. To be pedantic about code that works, not
> to warn about code that doesn't work (whic
Hello Rasmus,
Thanks. I guess I did not realize that because all of my
application logic is included after I set error_reporting()
Thanks for pointing this out.
--
Best regards,
Jasonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thursday, June 16, 2005, 4:32:11 PM, you wrote:
R
Jason Garber wrote:
> Hello boots,
>
> if(AppDevLevel == 'Production')
> {
> error_reporting(E_ALL);
> }
> else
> {
> error_reporting(E_ALL | E_STRICT);
> }
>
> Why don't you implement something like this in your application -
> then you CAN control what error level is
Hello boots,
if(AppDevLevel == 'Production')
{
error_reporting(E_ALL);
}
else
{
error_reporting(E_ALL | E_STRICT);
}
Why don't you implement something like this in your application -
then you CAN control what error level is used at the client site.
--
Best regards,
--- George Schlossnagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2005, at 2:50 PM, boots wrote:
> > --- Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> You missed the point of E_STRICT. I introduced it as an
> E_PEDANTIC.
> >> That was the whole idea. To be pedantic about code that works,
> not
>
On Jun 16, 2005, at 2:50 PM, boots wrote:
--- Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You missed the point of E_STRICT. I introduced it as an E_PEDANTIC.
That was the whole idea. To be pedantic about code that works, not
to warn about code that doesn't work (which is for higher warning
leve
--- Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You missed the point of E_STRICT. I introduced it as an E_PEDANTIC.
> That was the whole idea. To be pedantic about code that works, not
> to warn about code that doesn't work (which is for higher warning
> levels)
I don't think I missed that, I just
You missed the point of E_STRICT. I introduced it as an E_PEDANTIC. That
was the whole idea. To be pedantic about code that works, not to warn about
code that doesn't work (which is for higher warning levels)
At 09:30 AM 6/16/2005 -0700, boots wrote:
I was hoping that in the future, E_STRICT
On 6/16/05, Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 20:39 16/06/2005, Dan Scott wrote:
> >On 6/16/05, Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why would you enable it then? You have to very explicitly enable it, as
> > > it's off by default, and doesn't get enabled even if you switch to
At 20:39 16/06/2005, Dan Scott wrote:
On 6/16/05, Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why would you enable it then? You have to very explicitly enable it, as
> it's off by default, and doesn't get enabled even if you switch to E_ALL.
Well, that depends on your definition of "default";
I
On 6/16/05, Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why would you enable it then? You have to very explicitly enable it, as
> it's off by default, and doesn't get enabled even if you switch to E_ALL.
Well, that depends on your definition of "default";
php.ini-recommended in HEAD shows:
; - S
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 12:51, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Why would you enable it then? You have to very explicitly enable it, as
> it's off by default, and doesn't get enabled even if you switch to E_ALL.
>
> I think it can help, and I don't see how it can hurt given the fact it's
> not on unless you
Why would you enable it then? You have to very explicitly enable it, as
it's off by default, and doesn't get enabled even if you switch to E_ALL.
I think it can help, and I don't see how it can hurt given the fact it's
not on unless you want it to.
Zeev
At 19:30 16/06/2005, boots wrote:
I
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 09:30:20AM -0700, boots wrote:
> If there is any merit to E_STRICT as it stands currently I find it to
> be negated by the fact that it throws messages for completely
> acceptable code that the engine is both willing and capable of
> handling. If var is not acceptable, I thi
I was hoping that in the future, E_STRICT wasn't expanded and was
perhaps even taken back a step. I understand the reason for it: code
correctness. Yet if PHP5 is (rightly) considered a runtime engine then
its job should be to evaluate and execute code and in the case of
failure, explain why it cou
28 matches
Mail list logo
