On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Lukas Smith wrote:
> Lukas Smith wrote:
>
> Ok I see 2 options:
>
> 1)
> > Obviously one solution would be to disallow making anything an E_STRICT
> > notice that is not available since the first release of the given major
> > version.
>
> Pierre and Anthony seem to favor t
At 11:07 AM 11/19/2003 +, Ford, Mike [LSS] wrote:
On 19 November 2003 06:12, Andi Gutmans contributed these pearls of wisdom:
> Just a warning.
> I commited your patch. Not sure about the naming but it's the
> status quo for now :)
> Andi
>
>> + case E_STRIC
On 19 November 2003 06:12, Andi Gutmans contributed these pearls of wisdom:
> Just a warning.
> I commited your patch. Not sure about the naming but it's the
> status quo for now :)
> Andi
>
>> + case E_STRICT:
>> + error_type_str = "Strict
>> S
Just a warning.
I commited your patch. Not sure about the naming but it's the status quo
for now :)
Andi
At 09:20 PM 11/18/2003 -0800, Sara Golemon wrote:
> I added an E_STRICT error level today which purists can use to make sure
> that there scripts are using the latest and greatest suggested me
