I wouldn't mind that, though I'm concerned that it may not be sellable because some people on here have expressed a strong opinion that this shouldn't throw anything more than a notice or a warning at most, something that I and others strongly disagree with. The logical approach, to me at least, is to follow the example of include() and require(); i.e. they're both identical except that one throws a scary error while the other one is just a warning.
I'm fine with just throwing E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR, though I fear that may alienate too many people for us to be able to get this through. Though it's possible I might be overestimating that factor. --Kris On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:17 PM, John Crenshaw <johncrens...@priacta.com>wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Rick WIdmer <vch...@developersdesk.com > >wrote: > > > > > On 2/28/2012 2:58 PM, Kris Craig wrote: > > > > > > strong int $a = "1"; // Converts to 1. May or may not throw an error > > > (I'm > > >> still on the fence). > > >> > > > > > > It this is an error, it is no longer PHP. > > > > > > > @Rick Though I'm not sure I'd agree with the overly broad "it is no > longer PHP" hyperbole, I think the basic point that it would be a > significant departure from the current model has merit. So ok, you've > convinced me. > That example should not throw any errors. I'm officially no longer on the > fence with that. =) > > > > --Kris > > OK, if we're all on the same page there, I think this means that there is > no significant difference between the "strong int" and "weak int" in your > proposal (the only remaining difference being the level of error raised > when it cannot be converted, which IMO is not substantial enough to deserve > a keyword.) I'd prefer to just pick one error level to use > (E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR would be the most consistent) and keep everything > simple. > > John Crenshaw > Priacta, Inc. >
