Roman Neuhauser wrote: > # jochem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / 2007-01-02 21:23:02 +0100: >> David CHANIAL wrote: >>> We are preparing the upgrade of PHP for our customers, but, after some tests, >>> we have a migration "problem" caused by the news E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR. >>> >>> So, even if the upgrade guide (http://www.php.net/UPDATE_5_2.txt) talk about >>> the method to handle this new errors (by using try/catch), they don't talk >> there is no mention of try/catch - it seems that the rather unfortunate word >> 'catchable' was used to describe the act of setting up a user defined error handler >> (see: http://php.net/manual/en/function.set-error-handler.php) to handle errors >> that are triggered by the php core. [errors != exceptions] > > Unfortunately. Consider this: > > function f($any) > { > printf("%s\n", $any); > } > > Innocent enough? It's an E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR if $any is an object > without __toString(). It's also an example of a former C coder's understanding of how to do things in PHP. Not only is this extremely inefficient (a function call is significant overhead in PHP) it is doubly inefficient through the unnecessary use of printf(). printf() is best used when you are modifying the display of the output, the %s modifier by itself is pointless in PHP. function f($any) { echo $any . "\n"; } This has no E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR possibility and is far more efficient. Better yet, replace f($blah) with echo $blah . "\n" This is a good example of how the flexibility of PHP can bite you, but is also a good example of how bad coding adds both complexity and inefficiency to the resulting software. If f() is called often, there might be a noticeable speedup if it were replaced. I once had a complex database ORM-HTML mapping app that was about 10% faster when I replaced all the "" strings with '' strings. This was on a slow machine with an early PHP, but little things like this can be very important. Greg -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
