Hi Tim,
on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 09:09:58AM +1100, Tim Starling wrote:
On 18/03/12 20:37, Christian Aistleitner wrote:
Dear all,
should we allow using PHP's assert [1] in MediaWiki code?
It would allow us to formulate and automatically verify conditions
about code, while at the same
Hi Chad,
on Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 07:18:01PM -0400, Chad wrote:
I'd also add that the behavior of assertions vary based on configuration,
which is confusing at best.
Being able to vary based on configuration actually is a feature. An
essential one. It lowers assert's impact on performance.
But
On 19/03/12 21:43, Christian Aistleitner wrote:
Being able to vary based on configuration actually is a feature.
An essential one. It lowers assert's impact on performance. But
there is no need to mess with configuration. asserts work out of
the box. You are only given the possibility to turn
Hi Tim,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:20:53PM +1100, Tim Starling wrote:
assert_options( ASSERT_ACTIVE, 0 );
[ unmotivated ranting ]
I was talking about performance on production servers.
Obviously.
Where else would performance matter?
And yes. On production servers, one typically turns
Dear all,
should we allow using PHP's assert [1] in MediaWiki code?
It would allow us to formulate and automatically verify conditions
about code, while at the same time providing readable documentation of
code for free.
Possible, exemplary use cases would be:
- automatically verifyable
On 18/03/12 20:37, Christian Aistleitner wrote:
Dear all,
should we allow using PHP's assert [1] in MediaWiki code?
It would allow us to formulate and automatically verify conditions
about code, while at the same time providing readable documentation of
code for free.
Possible,
+1 to what Tim said. I effectively said as much about a week ago when this
was brought up on IRC.
I'd also add that the behavior of assertions vary based on configuration,
which is confusing at best. Unlike MWExceptions, which are all handled the
same.
-Chad
On Mar 18, 2012 6:10 PM, Tim Starling
