Nikita,
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Nikita Popov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Galen Wright-Watson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > What about an approach like PDO, where the password functions would
> > generate errors by default, but could be configured to throw exceptions?
> > The ugliest aspects of this idea are the requirement for another function
> > (password_set_option?) and hidden state. On the plus side, if you stick
> > with errors for now it could be implemented down the road and be fully
> BC.
>
> Guys, the whole point of the password API was to create something
> simple and easy to use. Adding error configuration etc would make the
> whole thing moot.
>
> I really don't see the issue with just throwing warnings here, like
> every single other function does. Sure, exceptions would be nice, but
> exceptions would be nice *everywhere*. They aren't of particular
> importance here. If you want to discuss moving the internal functions
> to some new error model, please start a new thread. It is definitely
> something worth discussing, but is rather off-topic here.
Definitely agree. Unless the discussion is specific to this RFC, please
start a new thread for any commentary on errors in core...
Anthony