Inline > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Lynch [mailto:c...@l-i-e.com] > > On Mon, February 27, 2012 1:15 pm, Kris Craig 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". > > > > 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). > > Nitpick: > Two backwards compatibility breaks: > 1) Throwing E_WARNING > 2) "aaa" converted to (int) is 0.
Sorry, I don't understand the BC break on the warning. Old code doesn't have this anyway, so what exactly would break? Shouldn't all existing scripts continue to work exactly the same as before unless they add a type check? (I'm sure the example was just wrong, "aaa" should convert to 0) > > strong int $ii = "aaa"; // Throws a fatal error. > > Okay. > > E_FATAL seems drastic to me, but I'm not even going to use "strong" so don't > really care either way, I suppose. I totally agree. E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR is the most severe that this should be (also matches the behavior of current type hints). > > weak int $i = "1"; // Converts to 1. > > Again, old-school (int) or set_type covers this. Unfortunately it doesn't completely. Yes, behavior is the same so long as the conversion is good, but a cast will silently accept impossible conversions, which is not what you really want here. John Crenshaw Priacta, Inc. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
