On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 at 05:57, Gina P. Banyard <intern...@gpb.moe> wrote: > > 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
Yes, that is a better description.
