Ashley Sheridan writes: > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 10:54 +0200, Gary . wrote:
> If foo3 never happens to be called when I am doing my testing (for > example if the call is in some "if" branch that is never exercised) then > it only gets found in production, so I would like to find this kind of > thing using a static analyser. The kind of problem in foo2 I could live > with, but would like to find as well, if possible. (Obviously I am using > these two example problems as indicative of the type of things I want to > find, it isn't an exhaustive list!) > > BTW, what problems *does* "php -l" pick up? I can't find a description > anywhere. > > According to the man page for php, the -l flag only checks the syntax, so a > warning wouldn't be displayed, as technically it's not a show-stopper. Well, I think foo3 is, but yeah, I know what you mean. > Maybe > some sort of unit testing would help pick out these sorts of issues? I do. Actually I posted this by mistake to the phpunit mailing list first :) > As PHP > isn't a compiled language, I guess it's harder for it to pick up on things > like this. Yeah. There are static checkers out there, even some FOSS ones. I guess I'm just a bit frustrated that (as you say) the man page says that "-l" checks syntax but doesn't really detail what kind of things that covers. Actually, I can't even find a decent description of what E_STRICT covers :( just that "Enabling E_STRICT during development has some benefits. STRICT messages will help you to use the latest and greatest suggested method of coding, for example warn you about using deprecated functions." "Some benefits"? "For example"? Telling people exactly what is covered seems more useful, to me. Meh. Anyway, that's my whine over for the day :) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
