At 09:26 24/08/2005, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> I didn't quite understand. Users would be able to handle E_FATAL
errors? How
> would exceptions from those user handlers propagate the C extensions?
No, they would only be able to catch E_ERROR, E_FATAL is the current
"E_ERROR" and can NOT be caught by the user defined error handler.
New status (or atleast, IMO):
E_NOTICE: Just for little notices to inform the user that something
might have gone wrong.
E_WARNING: Something went wrong, probably resulting in unwanted
behavior.
No change here (good!)
E_ERROR: An error situation occurred, which is probably dangerous for
a script to continue, but does not leave the Engine itself in
an unstable state. If this one is not caught in a user
defined error handler, the application aborts.
E_FATAL: The engine is in an unstable state, we have to abort. Not
catchable by a user defined error handler.
Replacing the meaning of E_ERROR is elegant, but it does create a problem
of cross-version compatibility of extensions (at the source code
level). If you want to raise an error that terminates execution, you'll
have to do it in two different ways - that's quite annoying. While I think
there are a lot of situations where E_ERROR is an overkill, there are tons
of situations where it isn't, so this is an issue.
Given that, I think we should go with the introduction of a new error
level, E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR, and keep E_ERROR with its existing meaning.
Zeev
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
