But I think it looks a bit cleaner if the variable could be omitted,
if it's not needed ;-)
I don't think we need to change the language because Netbeans can't
figure out how catch blocks work.
The Netbeans thing was just an example/addition.
It's not used by you - which btw is usually not
On 25 June 2013 22:23, Johannes Schlüter johan...@schlueters.de wrote:
On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 13:19 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
If I'm to understand this RFC correctly, it is nothing more than a
random suggestion someone posed in the form of a tweet and the author is
saying why not add
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Christian Stoller stol...@leonex.de wrote:
But I think it looks a bit cleaner if the variable could be omitted,
if it's not needed ;-)
I don't think we need to change the language because Netbeans can't
figure out how catch blocks work.
The Netbeans thing
On 26 juni 2013 at 08:35:59, Michael Wallner (m...@php.net) wrote:
On 25 June 2013 22:23, Johannes Schlüter johan...@schlueters.de wrote:
On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 13:19 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
If I'm to understand this RFC correctly, it is nothing more than a
random suggestion
Hi,
Another two cents here.
* Skipping binding a parameter to the exception would make debugging
harder. When you're stepping through code that isn't working correctly to
find a problem and then it throws an Exception which is caught in catch
block that doesn't name it e.g.
try
{
Hi all,
I just published an RFC that proposes to add catch-statement without needing
to specify a variable, and support for fully anonymous catches.
Details can be found at:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_catch
Regards,
Joost Koehoorn
Hi.
I am not sure about
I, too, believes that omitting the exception variable is great.
In addition, anonymous catch blocks will shorten the code of catch
(Exception $e) so... is just a simpler way of writing - and that's what
PHP agenda aiming for, doesn't it? be a friendly and readable language.
Reading
try {
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Joost Koehoorn
joost.koeho...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I just published an RFC that proposes to add catch-statement without needing
to specify a variable, and support for fully anonymous catches.
Details can be found at:
Hi!
In such a case you do not need any `$e`variable. Netbeans for example
always highlight's these variables because it is not used anywhere.
But I think it looks a bit cleaner if the variable could be omitted,
if it's not needed ;-)
I don't think we need to change the language because
On 25 June 2013 20:17, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
I don't think we need to change the language because Netbeans can't
figure out how catch blocks work. This change doesn't provide any
functionality that wasn't available before it, and does not make the
code clearer - on
Hi!
IMO actually it *makes* the code clearer, because $ignoredException is
not used, though a variable name like $ignored is self-explanatory,
too.
It's not used by you - which btw is usually not a good idea - if you've
got an exception, you usually should somehow react to it - at least log
Regarding all of the discussion about the unused variable:
If your catch blocks are too long or too complicated to be able to tell
that the variable is unused, then I highly suggest you refactor that
section.
---
To me, the only maybe-useful portion of this discussion would be the empty
catch
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
IMO actually it *makes* the code clearer, because $ignoredException is
not used, though a variable name like $ignored is self-explanatory,
too.
It's not used by you - which btw is usually not a good idea -
On 25 juni 2013 at 22:06:40, Sherif Ramadan (theanomaly...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
IMO actually it *makes* the code clearer, because $ignoredException is
not used, though a variable name like $ignored is
Hi!
If I'm to understand this RFC correctly, it is nothing more than a
random suggestion someone posed in the form of a tweet and the author is
saying why not add it since it's not hard to implement. So in summation
Well, here we go - this is why not add it, because it makes working with
such
On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 13:19 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
If I'm to understand this RFC correctly, it is nothing more than a
random suggestion someone posed in the form of a tweet and the author is
saying why not add it since it's not hard to implement. So in summation
Well, here we
On 25 juni 2013 at 01:20:04, Anthony Ferrara (ircmax...@gmail.com) wrote:
Joost,
First off, let me say welcome and thanks for the contribution!
I have a couple of questions around the intended proposal.
1. How do you plan on handling the case where there are multiple catch blocks?
try {
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Joost Koehoorn joost.koeho...@gmail.comwrote:
On 25 juni 2013 at 01:20:04, Anthony Ferrara (ircmax...@gmail.com) wrote:
Joost,
First off, let me say welcome and thanks for the contribution!
I have a couple of questions around the intended proposal.
1. How
18 matches
Mail list logo
