Hi, John
I personally do not care about weak or strong variables at all ... I only
want what Arvids suggested last time:
> test(1, 2); // 2;
> test("1", 2); // 2
> test("1aaa", 2); // E_NOTICE or E_TYPE and result 2
> test(array(2), 2); // E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR - just like with array type
hint now.
>
> It's really what the most people want. Simple, easy to pick up (object
> and array already have this) and is just optional.
I count myself as a part of *most people* in this statement ;)
I'm also quite fine with the current type-hints as you'd anyways get an
error if you try something like this:
function foo(SimpleClass $a) {
$a->getName();
}
foo("Test");
If you now get *method called from an non-object* or a message that you
have passed a value that's not compatible with *SimpleClass* ...
I'd like to split this discussion in parts:
- just type-hint in functions (as we have it with classes and arrays) or
bind a variable to a strict type?
- should it then also be possible bind variables to a specific class
or interface?
- should we go for weak or strong types?
- the type-hint is also weak in one way because it accepts all that's
compatible with the given type.
Bye
Simon
2012/2/29 John Crenshaw <johncrens...@priacta.com>
> I would personally be inclined towards something simpler like E_NOTICE or
> E_WARNING, but current type hints all raise E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR. I think we
> should be consistent, and the consistency argument may make the difference.
>
> There may be a strong case for changing the error level on all type hints
> to something simpler (or new, like E_TYPE), but I think that might be
> better to tackle that in a separate discussion.
>
> John Crenshaw
> Priacta, Inc.
>
> From: Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:40 PM
> To: John Crenshaw
> Cc: Rick WIdmer; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar type hinting
>
> 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
> <mailto:johncrens...@priacta.com>> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Rick WIdmer <vch...@developersdesk.com
> <mailto: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.
>
>
