Larry,
> Unsurprisingly I'd favor PR 3: Explicit exception. > > I'll be honest that I'm still very confused why there's so much > resistance from the Editors on using exception types for what they're > supposed to be used for. Different error condition, different > exception. In 20 years of writing code I cannot recall ever saying > "damn, this error message is too precise and specific". I have said > the opposite more times than I can count. David works on his personal time to implement something that you want, we both say that we are ready to accept that change if you think this is mandatory for you to accept the spec, I don't see how you can call that "resistance" but maybe that's just a wording issue and I shouldn't take too much notice of that. Also I just want to point out that of course there should be very precise and explicit exceptions, we all agree on that. It's just that we don't believe the interface (as such, the spec) makes sense because you wouldn't need to catch it. Implementors *should* make very explicit exceptions. Anyway, again this is just my opinion and I understand you may not share it, I just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. > PR 1 would resolve the awkward wording, although I do feel it is the > inferior approach as it is less precise and provides less contextual > information for callers. (That we don't at the moment know when a > caller would want that extra information is, IMO, irrelevant as it's > so easy to provide.) > > PR 2 actively works to make using the spec harder, and I cannot get > behind that at all. > > I am admittedly unlikely to vote +1 on the spec regardless, but > should it pass anyway I feel it should still be as good (or least > bad) as possible, and that is PR 3. If I understand correctly you might vote -1 because: > That is, with that [the dependency lookup feature] removed, what's > left to standardize? get() and has() are barely an specification. What do you think of the fact that some frameworks (Slim, Zend Expressive, Silly…) or some libraries (Behat…) are able to integrate with any container thanks to ContainerInterface? Do you disagree it justifies the existence of PSR-11? Matthieu -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to php-fig@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/1484583341.4167444.849326328.6C83C9C3%40webmail.messagingengine.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
