On 04.07.2009, at 22:08, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 04.07.2009, at 21:10, Paul Biggar <paul.big...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Lukas Kahwe
Smith<m...@pooteeweet.org> wrote:
I can't see the difference between your proposal and the
conclusion I
reached yesterday?
(which was that there is a near consensus around strict checks by
default, with casts allowed with some syntax).
Well to me it Sounded like you wanted to Rely on Standard Type
juggling and
what i am proposing is more strict than that. More over i am Not
convinced
that strict should Be the Default.
I don't know what you mean by standard type-juggling. Your proposal
really does not outline what you want very much, just what you're
against. As for strictness, if your proposal suggests that strict
typing is the default, I cannot see where.
I did Not specify what doesnt Match in the RFC. I will fix that
omission on monday. I assumed it was clear that i tried to Provide
Complete examples for what will Pass. So Passung a String with
anything but 1 or 0 would Not Pass à Bool Type check.
Ok, I have updated the RFC now with a table that shows that I expect
to pass and fail. Its fairly late, so I might have missed something.
In general what I am proposing is more lax than is_*() for the most
part. Especially when it comes to checking strings.
I do not understand why its suddenly so urgent to get this feature
in(*), that people already speak about frustration over the process
after just a few days. We dont need years and usually not months, but
this is not the addition of some function. Its an extension to the
language syntax, so I think its totally normal that we talk about this
for at least a month. Though we do not of course need a daily exchange
of 100 emails about this in this period. Obviously things can still be
refined after the commit, but we should stuff give everybody a bit of
time to let this stuff sink in before we do the initial commit. Also
remember that plenty of people that contribute a fair bit to PHP
internals do not read internals actively every week. So again a month
isn't such a bad idea to have between the initial proposal and a
commit of the feature.
regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
m...@pooteeweet.org
(*) even if the patch Ilia proposed doesn't break binary compatibility
anymore, do we really want to start adding such stuff in 5.3.2?
shouldn't we rather talk about finding a better release process (maybe
build on top of recent developments in the version control world) that
enables us to more quickly get x.y releases out without preventing
bigger features like unicode from ever maturing?
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
