Hi Rowan, On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the other hand, if the concern is having to support it, then it could > just be E_ERROR. The reason I chose E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR is because that had > recently been adopted for other things, such as invalid method calls. As I > mentioned in my original e-mail, the recovery behaviour needn't be the > existing string interpretation, but could just be to treat the value as > NULL, which would probably be simpler to implement. Personally, I've never > actually recovered an E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR, so am not sure what use cases we > should be supporting. Please don't use E_ERROR. It cannot be catched by user error handler now. If user error handler can catch it, then I don't mind it. E_RECOVERBLE_ERROR is better than E_ERROR. I use user defined error handler always for immediate notification. I use log analyzer also, but it has time lag. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net
