# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-04 10:54:58 +0000: > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-03 15:18:59 -0600: > > Roman Neuhauser wrote: > > > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-01-02 21:23:02 +0100: > > >> 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.
Clarification: the last sentence is true as far as the contrived example above. The rest of the message (suggestions that structuring code is bad) and where it leads is without a base. -- 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
