Le mer. 11 mars 2015 à 22:44, Marcio Almada <marcio.w...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 2015-03-11 6:27 GMT-03:00 Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk>: > > > On 11/03/15 09:05, wp12173047-156224 wp12173047-156224 wrote: > > > Most of the examples being shown are examples of simple bad programming > > practice that needs fixing anyway, and I would expect a proper code > > review to have picked them up, so don't see that adding the check in PHP > > is essential. It would however be a useful addition but in the E_STRICT > > category ... not that I want to maintain that, but being able to ignore > > those errors until such time as it is appropriate to fix them. > I don't really see how this favors E_STRICT over E_NOTICE as any of this type of errors can be displayed/hidden independently. > I think this is a valid argument to keep the E_STRICT error level option > for the secondary voting. > That's a very useful information, thanks :) > It also depends on your perception of E_STRICT. This level has been introduced in 5.0 without being part of E_ALL in order to, among other things, avoid too much pain in the *** while migrating from 4.x to 5.x. As of 5.4, E_ALL contains E_STRICT and the difference between E_STRICT and E_NOTICE/E_WARNING is certainly not in terms of severity. Using an undefined variable or property => notice. Trying to get property of non-object => notice. Use of undefined constant => notice For this reason, I think we should use the standard notice/warning/error levels as much as possible. You may take a look at Nikita's "Reclassify E_STRICT RFC" for more info about it. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reclassify_e_strict Cheers, Patrick
