On 23.05.22 20:58, Juliette Reinders Folmer wrote:
This RFC worries me as, in my opinion, it makes PHP's behaviour more
surprising and inconsistent, not less.
It also raises the cognitive complexity for developers by yet another
level.
1. It introduces a new interpretation of boolean type coercion, which
is only applied against type declarations.
2. This new interpretation is not consistent with "normal" boolean
type coercion, not consistent with strict types (no coercion) and also
not consistent with what is considered a valid boolean value by the
Filter extension.
I am not sure what you mean by "normal" boolean type coercion and how it
would be inconsistent with those. The RFC does not change the behavior
of boolean type coercions, it just points out possibly surprising coercions.
The filter extension has its very own interpretation of how to validate
a boolean which is completely incompatible with how PHP does implicit
type coercions already. Yet people using the filter extension are not
affected by this RFC at all, they have already chosen their way to
convert a value to boolean. But comparing the filter extension with the
implicit type conversion does show how dangerous it can be to for
example switch from FILTER_VALIDATE_BOOLEAN (with
FILTER_NULL_ON_FAILURE) to the implicit boolean conversions from PHP:
with the filter extension "false", "off" and "no" are converted to
false, while all these values are silently converted to true by implicit
boolean conversion by PHP. People switching from the filter extension to
the built-in types of PHP have another way of shooting themselves in the
foot, and it is easy to miss the change in behavior.
While I agree that the current behaviour of PHP can hide bugs, I fear
that even more bugs will be introduced when PHP contains yet a third
form of coercion to boolean and the type coercion used is dependent on
the context.
Assuming from the rest of your response, I am assuming you mean
"truthiness" comparisons, like in if statements and other expressions.
Those are already different from coercions to typed booleans and have
different semantics. In an if statement you can check for truthiness
with any type, while a typed boolean only accepts scalar values. I am
seeing an advantage of further separating those use cases, as a
misconception seems to exist that a check for truthiness is just a
conversion to boolean. Having clearer semantics would actually lower
cognitive complexity from my perspective - knowing that only 7 values
are considered sensible for a typed boolean and getting a notice for any
other values makes it a lot clearer how it behaves and when I as a
developer will get warned.
I fear this will only lead to more bugs, not less (because people new
to PHP will learn the "type declaration" based boolean coercion rules
and assume they apply everywhere).
But they would actually apply anywhere, as far as I know: My suggested
allowed values for typed booleans can be used in if statements and lead
to the exact same behavior.
I also fear that for code bases which do not (yet) use scalar type
declarations, this will be one more argument not to introduce scalar
type declarations (while they should).
My suggestion is far less impactful for "legacy" codebases compared to
the other scalar type checking - an "int" parameter only accepting valid
numbers and leading to a TypeError otherwise is a much bigger hurdle
from my perspective than introducing a deprecation notice for a suspect
boolean type coercion. I cannot really believe that "failed" not being
auto-coerced to true will be the straw that breaks the camels back in
legacy codebases. And again: It is just a deprecation notice, I even
amended the RFC to say that this being elevated to a TypeError will have
to be decided after the impact of the deprecation notices become clear,
not now. My goal is not necessarily to be as strict as possible but
rather point out to developers where something might be going wrong.
I'd say that for this RFC to be acceptable it would need to apply to
all implicit type coercions to boolean. However, the BC-break that
would cause and the fall-out of this for non-greenfields codebases is
just too huge, which, to me, makes this RFC a very strong no-no.
I will amend the RFC to show how typed booleans already have their own
type coercions that are not the same as the truthiness checks in if or
similar expressions - thanks for pointing that out and showing that
there is some confusion there that might benefit from a clearer
explanation. Changing how truthiness is evaluated in PHP makes no sense
to me though, and I don't think such a drastic step is necessary to get
a lot of benefits.
If you have further feedback, I would be happy to hear it. So far I have
not gotten much feedback, and most of it was going towards being
positive, so being able to get to know the other perspective would help
to address it in the RFC and improve it overall.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
