On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Leigh <lei...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 February 2015 at 15:45, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: >> Still, no announce for a discussion about this specific RFC. And >> really, the content of the RFC is almost empty, pointing to the ML >> archive is really not the right way :) > > There was an RFC announce thread 3 days ago. I agree 3 days is a short > period of time, but the announce thread existed. Maybe it was a reply > to DbC with a changed subject and your mail client didn't show it as > new? I don't know, there was definitely a thread though.
I mentioned that thread in my comment. It is still way behind what should be done when creating a new RFC, let alone pushing it to the vote phase. > On 19 February 2015 at 16:06, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: >> I like the concept and idea but still not sure about the custom >> exception vs AssertException. > > Looking at the implementation, it seems that the custom exception > still has to descend from AssertException > > https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1088/files#diff-232f2dffbb06c0b6004724d8a498e7e7R248 > > That seems like a good restriction to me. You can still catch > everything with AssertException but you can make it more specific if > you want. I did not comment on what should be done, while I do consider this open question as a blocker to actually take a good decision for this RFC. I do think it should be discussed, answered and voted either at the same time or before this RFC. -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
