Re: RE: Announcing RFC 'Anonymous Catches'
On 25 juni 2013 at 22:06:40, Sherif Ramadan ([email protected]) wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Stas Malyshev <[email protected]> wrote:
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
it or something, that's what the exceptions are for, if the situation
does not require special handling it shouldn't be an exception. But it
may be very useful for debugging, for example. Especially if somebody
other than you looks at this code and tries to figure out what is going
on. Removing vital information - like ability to see which exception was
thrown - just to save 3 keystrokes - looks like a very misguided idea to me.
Not to down-play the importance of what you're saying, since I fully agree with it, but he is
saying that this isn't a key-stroke saving proposition.
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 this is one of those "nice to have" features that has little
cost and very little benefit. And I'm referring only to making the Exception variable optional
(not the anonymous catch -- I'm entirely opposed to that part).
So this entire discussion can be summed up nicely with "Let's make the variable optional
because... why not?".
Correct. The tweet was actually a serious request and grounded (see http://news.php.net/php.webmaster/16092 as an
earlier response to you). So the reason to make it optional is not really "why not?",
there is some reasoning behind it.
Thread (18 messages)