# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-03 15:18:59 -0600:
> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-02 21:23:02 +0100:
> >> David CHANIAL wrote:
> >>> We are preparing the upgrade of PHP for our customers, but, after some
> >>> tests,
> >>> we have a migration "problem" caused by the news E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR.
> >>>
> >>> So, even if the upgrade guide (http://www.php.net/UPDATE_5_2.txt) talk
> >>> about
> >>> the method to handle this new errors (by using try/catch), they don't
> >>> talk
> >> there is no mention of try/catch - it seems that the rather unfortunate
> >> word
> >> 'catchable' was used to describe the act of setting up a user defined
> >> error handler
> >> (see: http://php.net/manual/en/function.set-error-handler.php) to handle
> >> errors
> >> that are triggered by the php core. [errors != exceptions]
> >
> > Unfortunately. Consider this:
> >
> > function f($any)
> > {
> > printf("%s\n", $any);
> > }
> >
> > Innocent enough? It's an E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR if $any is an object
> > without __toString().
>
> It's also an example of a former C coder's understanding of how to do
> things in PHP. Not only is this extremely inefficient (a function call
> is significant overhead in PHP) it is doubly inefficient through the
> unnecessary use of printf(). printf() is best used when you are
> modifying the display of the output, the %s modifier by itself is
> pointless in PHP.
This is utter crap.
> function f($any)
> {
> echo $any . "\n";
> }
>
> This has no E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR possibility and is far more efficient.
> Better yet, replace
>
> f($blah)
>
> with
>
> echo $blah . "\n"
echo $blah . "\n" is *not* equivalent to printf("%s\n", $blah)
<more crap elided>
--
How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?
You don't know, man. You don't KNOW.
Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
