Lars Torben Wilson wrote: > 2009/8/20 Hannes Magnusson <hannes.magnus...@gmail.com>: > >> In 2 years (when everyone knows about the warning) people will be >> wondering why the example shows a complicated way to throw an error.. >> >> The example is nice to show what exactly no longer works, but the >> wording and example show a hint of disappointment that it doesn't work >> in 5.3.. >> >> I don't know how to rephrase it though ;) >> >> Maybe add <refsect role="errors">, including a file calling >> func_get_args() will throw an E_WARNING, even when included from >> functions.. ? >> >> >> -Hannes >> > > Hi Hannes, Greg, and others, > > I've been thinking about this some more and honestly, so far the > wording I first posted still is the least ambiguous and most concise. > I thought about Greg's idea some more, but that simply moves the > problem from one place to another. > > What about simply removing the example unless we get a lot of > complaints that the wording doesn't sufficiently explain it? > Personally I feel that a careful reading of the wording should cover > the issue well, and just included the example to be extra cautious. > I personally had no idea what it was talking about until I read the example, for what that's worth :). I tend to find code far more explanatory than English for things of this nature. > On another note, would just a reading of the version note, without the > example added, sound disappointed? :) Honestly I'm not personally > disappointed about the change. I've never personally encountered that > usage before and probably would have considered it a little iffy if I > had.
Greg
