On Wednesday, 26 June 2024 at 14:54, Kamil Tekiela <tekiela...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the "Deprecate passing E_USER_ERROR to trigger_error()" should > be better explained. Why is using this constant a problem? There is a > link to another RFC, but I can't see an explanation as to why > E_USER_ERROR suffers the same problem as fatal errors do. From an > average Joe's perspective, it looks fine and does the job > https://3v4l.org/e97TO Returning control after an E_USER_ERROR seems problematic to me in the first place, as the condition which lead to the trigger surely implies the current code is unable to handle the situation. See: https://3v4l.org/7pdvO But the issues with fatal errors are the same as explained in the linked RFC, in that destructors (and finally blocks, etc.) are not called. See: https://3v4l.org/J5NXF Using exceptions instead is more robust. Is this explanation clear enough? If so, I will incorporate it into the RFC. Best regards, Gina P. Banyard
