Jasper Bryant-Greene schrieb: > Oliver Grätz wrote: > >>3. Yes. One can abuse exceptions to return something in a constructor. >> Just another argument against exceptions ;-) OK, it's unorthodox, >> if you absolutely need to do that, do it and tell nobody *g*. > > This is not "abusing" exceptions. If you throw an exception then the > expected behaviour should be that the following code should not be > executed [1]. If you throw the exception for error purpose it's OK, but if you throw the exception just for the purpose of returning a value then it's abuse. That's what I meant. > Throwing an exception inside a constructor will prevent the object from > being created. It will not allow you to "return something" of your > choice -- I haven't tested but I would expect that the variable you were > setting as the object would either remain unset or would be set to NULL. Tested. non-object. At least this is as expected ;-) > I'm not too sure why you said "just another argument against exceptions" > (apart from perhaps a lack of understanding) as exceptions are a very > useful feature in any language. Sorry I didn't mark this as personal opinion (just like all the rest). Exceptions make good programming more difficult without need. Raymond Chen wrote this about exceptions: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/1/14.aspx AllOLLi ____________ This time it will surely run. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
