On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 23:39, Randall Girard <randallgir...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Okay, my mistake. > > > E_USER_WARNING and E_USER_NOTICE are supposed to continue execution, > correct?
Correct. > Then I will restate what I previously said. throwing ErrorException from an No no. Stop there. Exceptions are *totally* different from E_*. > ERROR_HANDLER(...) is useless iwht E_USER_WARNING and E_USER_NOTICE. Why? > Because when you throw the exception from the ERROR_HANDLER, presumably it > may NOT get caught in a try/catch block. Therefor the execution cannot > continue. Exactly. And that is the point. Why would you be turning E_USER_* into exceptions if you don't want to bail out of the current scope? If you throw an exception from the error handler, what exactly do you expect to happen? I gave several reasons for why that simply is impossible, but I am curious: what exactly are you expecting? > Therefor, I think that either a check to see if the TRY/CATCH has been > initiated further up the call stack, or a function to call from within the > EXCEPTION_HANDLER that will return execution to the previous scope. > > > I don't see how this is difficult to understand. So you expect a scripting language to scroll up the entire execution chain to see if there is a catch() block at all, and if there is no catch() block, the simply ignore the exception and continue? If thats your expectations then you are severely misunderstanding the concept of exceptions. Please do "reply-all". And please do not top-post. -Hannes -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php