Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
The vote is should OO strictness (fatal error on changing function
arguments in derived classes in this case) be removed or kept.
I think fatal error should be definitely removed or the rules be at
least relaxed sufficie
On the same note you can use C and ignore all rules, coding using only
void pointers and relying purely on gotos for flow control. :-)
Sure, and PHP is much closer to "C" (I intentionally use quotes because
it's not matter of language but rather concept, but since you named it,
I will keep t
On 6-Oct-06, at 12:17 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
I be wary of allowing this because in some instances method
signature can drastically impact behavior for example
foo(&$bar) {} vs foo($bar); I'd prefer to don't reduce this to
E_NOTICE.
Yes, it can have runtime impact. So what? There are
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
> Edin Kadribasic wrote:
> > Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > > > The vote is should OO strictness (fatal error on changing function
> > > > arguments in derived classes in this case) be removed or kept.
> > >
> > > I think fatal error should be definitely r
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Michael Wallner wrote:
> Michael Wallner wrote:
>
> > I'd therefore like to conduct a serious vote on this issue.
> >
> > [X] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
> > [ ] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
> > [ ] ( 0) what the hell are you ta
I be wary of allowing this because in some instances method signature
can drastically impact behavior for example
foo(&$bar) {} vs foo($bar); I'd prefer to don't reduce this to E_NOTICE.
Yes, it can have runtime impact. So what? There are so many cases where,
for example, not declaring a var
On 6-Oct-06, at 11:59 AM, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
I believe that most OO "strictness" fatal errors should be demoted
to notices.
* Changing function signatures in derived classes
I be wary of allowing this because in some instances method signature
can drastically impact behavior for exam
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
The vote is should OO strictness (fatal error on changing function
arguments in derived classes in this case) be removed or kept.
I think fatal error should be definitely removed or the rules be at
least relaxed sufficiently to accomodate for P
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
The vote is should OO strictness (fatal error on changing function
arguments in derived classes in this case) be removed or kept.
I think fatal error should be definitely removed or the rules be at
least relaxed sufficiently to accomodate for PHP flexibility - e.g., (
The vote is should OO strictness (fatal error on changing function
arguments in derived classes in this case) be removed or kept.
I think fatal error should be definitely removed or the rules be at
least relaxed sufficiently to accomodate for PHP flexibility - e.g., ()
should be allowed to be
Should be non-fatal.
IMO, we shouldn't even be using up CPU cycles to check this; use a
compiled language for that kind of safety.
--Wez.
On 10/6/06, Edin Kadribasic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The vote is should OO strictness (fatal error on changing function
arguments in derived classes in thi
The vote is should OO strictness (fatal error on changing function
arguments in derived classes in this case) be removed or kept.
Edin
Wez Furlong wrote:
Just a lame ass late-to-the-show comment... I've been out of touch and
this mini thread gives no indication what the vote is about.
Can we
Just a lame ass late-to-the-show comment... I've been out of touch and
this mini thread gives no indication what the vote is about.
Can we try to use more descriptive subjects going forward, thanks!
--Wez.
On 10/5/06, Lukas Kahwe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael Wallner wrote:
> 3, 2
Michael Wallner wrote:
3, 2 [+1] (remove)Mike, Pierre, Edin (Robert Cummings, Bertrand Gugger)
1, 1 [+0] (nonfatal) Zeev (Richard Lynch)
3, 0 [-1] (leave) Sebastian, Ilia, Derick
BTW I think even if Marcus has not voted yet he is sure to be in the
leave as in CVS camp :)
rega
Michael Wallner wrote:
Michael Wallner wrote:
I'd therefore like to conduct a serious vote on this issue.
[X] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
[ ] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
[ ] ( 0) what the hell are you talking about?
3, 2 [+1] (remove)Mi
Michael Wallner wrote:
> I'd therefore like to conduct a serious vote on this issue.
>
> [X] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
> [ ] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
> [ ] ( 0) what the hell are you talking about?
3, 2 [+1] (remove)Mike, Pierre, Edin
16 matches
Mail list logo
