Re: [VOTE] Allowing use of exceptions in the engine
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Zeev!
>
> I think this is a misunderstanding... I'm not suggesting to simply let the
> engine continue after an E_ERROR - as you pointed out, that would likely
> just crash it a few lines further down.
>
> This RFC is mainly a policy RFC: The goal is to allow the use of
> exceptions in the engine and to allow changing existing fatal errors to
> exceptions. The change from fatal errors to exceptions needs to happen
> manually, by adjusting the surrounding code to support continued execution
> (usually that means freeing resources + returning). A lot of fatal errors
> are easy to change, others are very hard or impossible. Changing fatal
> errors to exceptions rather than recoverable errors is both more useful to
> the end user and technically easier (as recoverable errors need to continue
> execution in the same codepath, which is often a lot harder to implement
> and find appropriate semantics for), which is why I'm suggesting this
> particular course of action.
>
> So, basically what I'm suggest is what you say in the last paragraph, just
> going directly to exceptions rather than converting to E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR
> :)
>
> Hope this is a bit clearer.
>
OK, got you. Not using exceptions in the engine was also a design
decision (so that we don't force OO concepts on non-OO people) - need to
think if it still makes sense and get back to the vote.
Thanks!
Zeev
Thread (19 messages)