Yeah again sorry about the 1. Another dyslexic moment on this end lol. I don't care about the specific terminology we use, just so long as it makes sense and people aren't confusing it with something else. I differentiated between strong and weak in order to accommodate the looser functionality that Arvids had suggested. I'm fine with just going with the stronger approach and calling that weak if that's what everyone wants.
--Kris On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Now, to rewind a bit past the latest chunk of "I hate this idea" posts.... >> >> I'd like to suggest a new term: "strong". >> > > I think it would be better if we could not introduce terms for new > definition if that term is already used in the vocabulary for type systems: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_typing > > >> >> This term would be similar to "weak", except with a few key differences: >> >> - Weak would behave very much like Arvids suggested in his earlier >> post; i.e. if the variable is an integer but you pass a string (like >> "aaa") >> to it, a warning would be thrown and PHP would attempt to convert it (i.e. >> it would become 1). >> >> why would "aaa" turn to 1? it would be 0 by the php type juggling rules. > > >> >> - Strong, on the other hand, would throw a fatal error if you >> attempted to pass an incompatible value to an array. Or, to put it >> another >> way, if the "converted" value does not match the original value. For >> example, if we're assigning "aaa" to an integer, that would convert to 1; >> and, since "1" != "aaa", a fatal error would be thrown. On the other >> hand, >> if you were to pass the string "1" to that integer variable, it would >> convert to 1; and, since "1" == 1, there wouldn't be a problem. >> >> same error here, it seems that it isn't the typo. putting that aside: so > you say that the type checking would behave the same was as does currently > the == and === operator. > >> >> - In both instances, if the converted value matches the original >> (i.e. "1" == 1), no warning error would be displayed. Should it perhaps >> display a notice though? Or no error at all? I can think of reasonable >> arguments on both sides of that question. >> >> > I remember seeing that suggestion before, I think that it was proposed > more than once, see > http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=128159992610321&w=3 > did you read that thread? > > -- > Ferenc Kovács > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu >
