Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> # jochem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / 2007-01-03 16:43:14 +0100:
>> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
>>> # jochem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / 2007-01-03 14:07:31 +0100:
....
>
> BTW, would you share a version of f($any) that meets your definition of
> good code?
I would suggest adding some sanity checking - as opposed to relying on
any kind of error trigger/trapping/catching mechanism.
the regard to the point of the possible/perceived cons of working with an
interpreted, dynamically typed language the post Gregory Beaver made make the
case much more clearly than I could have.
I'll leave this thread for what it is now, leave it to say that it's been
a very interesting discussion and I certainly appreciated your [Roman]
thoughtful examples & arguments.
rgds,
Jochem
>
>>>>> function f($any)
>>>>> {
>>>>> printf("%s\n", $any);
>>>>> }
>
>>>> true - but then it would force someone to use exceptions - the overall
>>>> consensus went against forcing that on people.
>>> I don't follow the logic. What did we gain? Can one of those "exceptions
>>> == Java, Java stinks, exceptions stink" campers show me their version of
>>> the below f($any) that works in 5.1 and 5.2?
>> probably not - i wouldn't know I don't live in that camp.
>
> That's why I didn't ask *you*. ;)
>
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
