[X] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
[ ] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
[ ] ( 0) what the hell are you talking about?
> I think we need a fourth option in the poll - keep the error as
> E_STRICT and nothing more (also in future versions). That would get
>
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Ron Korving wrote:
In this case, wouldn't E_NOTICE make more sense? E_STRICT kind of indicates
that certain behaviour is deprecated, right?
Not really, E_STRICT is for when you're doing something that you
shouldn't. In my opinion that includes using
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Ron Korving wrote:
> In this case, wouldn't E_NOTICE make more sense? E_STRICT kind of indicates
> that certain behaviour is deprecated, right?
Not really, E_STRICT is for when you're doing something that you
shouldn't. In my opinion that includes using a deprecated function
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 11:10 22/09/2006, Derick Rethans wrote:
> >On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Michael Wallner wrote:
> >
> > > [ ] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
> > > [X] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
> > > [ ] ( 0) what the hell are you
Ron Korving wrote:
> In this case, wouldn't E_NOTICE make more sense? E_STRICT kind of
> indicates that certain behaviour is deprecated, right?
We are moving in circles. Using E_STRICT for both the use of deprecated
language features and the "unstrict" use of language features is
confusing.
-
On 24/09/06, Ron Korving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In this case, wouldn't E_NOTICE make more sense? E_STRICT kind of indicates
that certain behaviour is deprecated, right?
I think that's a whole other issue. E_STRICT seems to be used for both
errors in coding style (calling static methods from
In this case, wouldn't E_NOTICE make more sense? E_STRICT kind of indicates
that certain behaviour is deprecated, right?
- Ron
"Zeev Suraski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> At 11:10 22/09/2006, Derick Rethans wrote:
> >On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
At 11:10 22/09/2006, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Michael Wallner wrote:
> [ ] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
> [X] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
> [ ] ( 0) what the hell are you talking about?
It's not necessarily a *strict* OO implemen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Derick Rethans wrote:
> It's not necessarily a *strict* OO implementaiton though, it's one that
> is correct. Strictness is where we would disallow setting object
> properties on the fly while not declaring that. I would actually like to
> see tha
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Michael Wallner wrote:
> [ ] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
> [X] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
> [ ] ( 0) what the hell are you talking about?
It's not necessarily a *strict* OO implementaiton though, it's one that
is correct. Str
This one time, at band camp, Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
> [X] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
> [ ] ( 0) what the hell are you talking about?
0
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing Li
[] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
[X] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
[ ] ( 0) what the hell are you talking about?
Ilia
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[X] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
[ ] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
[ ] ( 0) what the hell are you talking about?
Edin
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[ ] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
[ ] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
[X] ( 0) what the hell are you talking about?
--
Brian Moon
-
http://dealnews.com/
Its good to be cheap =)
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsu
Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Christian,
>
> the short form is, use interfaces. And the long form is read the upgrade
> file and find out to use interfaces :-)
Sorry for nagging again, but his issue still concerns me a lot.
The thing is that currently we have inheritance rules that feel
a lo
15 matches
Mail list logo
