> -----Original Message----- > From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 08 February 2002 13:46 > > At 02:39 PM 2/8/2002 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote: > >On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 14:30, Andi Gutmans wrote: > > > At 02:20 PM 2/8/2002 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote: > > > >On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 14:14, Andi Gutmans wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Fine tuning errors is probably a good idea. E_PEDANTIC? > > > > > > > >A lot of errors that are E_NOTICE today would definitely > be better off > > > >as E_PEDANTIC. Undefined array indexes come to mind. What else? > > > >E_INFO may be a bit vague (and probably attract a lot of "misc" > > > >errors). What about E_COMPAT for compatibility issues? > > > > > > E_PENDATIC, E_COMPAT, E_NOTICE, E_WARNING, E_ERROR > > > Do you see E_PENDANTIC and E_NOTICE as much different? Can we > > differentiate > > > between them? > > > >Well, E_PENDANTIC is more specific, its use should be > limited to really > >strict warnings, just like in C compilers. Just move those > errors from > >E_NOTICE to E_PEDANTIC and leave the remaining E_NOTICEs as they are. > >Or are you saying you see less point in having E_NOTICE with > E_PEDANTIC? > > Yeah that's what I meant but I think you're right. We can use > E_PENDATIC > for *really* pedantic messages. It'd be actually interesting > to find all > sorts of places which could do with this.
Could this be called E_STRICT? E_PEDANTIC seems too prone to mistyping (witness it's spelt 3 different ways above!), and E_STRICT seems to be as good a name for what it's doing. Cheers! Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Ford, Electronic Information Services Adviser, Learning Support Services, Learning & Information Services, JG125, James Graham Building, Leeds Metropolitan University, Beckett Park, LEEDS, LS6 3QS, United Kingdom Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 113 283 2600 extn 4730 Fax: +44 113 283 3211 -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
