On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 3:01 PM Pierre <pierre-...@processus.org> wrote:
>
> Le 21/06/2024 à 14:27, Robert Landers a écrit :
>
> This is why I wanted to work on "as" part of the pattern matching. It
> isn't clear what will happen with the actual pattern matching RFC
> (yet), but being able to do:
>
> some_function_expecting_int($_GET['foo'] as ?int);
>
> And how about:
>
> some_function_expecting_int(\intval($_GET['foo']));
>
> And moreover, I'd write something like this, but:
>
> function validate_int(mixed $value): int {
> if (null === $value || '' === $value) {
> return null;
> }
> if (\is_int($value)) {
> return $value;
> }
> if (\is_string($value) && \ctype_digit($value)) {
> return \intval($value);
> }
> throw new \InvalidArgumentException("What what!");
> }
>
> some_function_expecting_int(validate_int($_GET['foo'] ?? null));
>
> But the example might be erroneous, I see your point, nevertheless making
> coercion explicit doesn't seem really relevant to me, the one point I like in
> your syntax would be null handling.
>
> --
>
> Pierre
Or... you could just turn off strict types instead of reinventing
coercion that isn't nearly as well documented as the built-in
coercion.
Robert Landers
Software Engineer
Utrecht NL
