On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Michael Morris <dmgx.mich...@gmail.com>wrote:
> So the official response is "get lost"? > > no, it is: "come back after you did your homework, and you can provide new arguments to the discussion" > I don't know about the internals implications. But from an external > API standpoint I see no problem in allowing programmers who want to > strictly enforce a variable's datatype to do so. Legacy code would > not be affected unless it was trying to use the new reserved word > "strict" > > it was discussed before, strict typing tends to be "viral", in the sense that the developer using a lib which enforces method signatures using type hinting can either: - write a lot of boiler plate code to make sure that he/she is passing the expected types (notice that strict typing would pass that burden to the api consumer, which is against the Generous on input, strict on output paradigm, plus it would generate much more work, as there are always more consumers than producers) - or simply passing those requirements up in the call chain, which is less work, but affects even more code, and in the end, turns the whole app into strict typing. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
