Hi, Arvids I did not meant to putt all in one big RFC but more to think about the connection between these two while developing.
Bye Simon 2012/2/29 Arvids Godjuks <arvids.godj...@gmail.com> > Combining different things into one big RFC is not a good idea. It's > hard to develop and test the work it it's in one big chunk. > Decomposition makes it much easier. Type hinting has to have it's own > RFC. > Besides - someone can be willing to do type hinting patch and don't > want to do the object_cast_magic one. > > And thanks for the support :) > > 2012/2/29 Simon Schick <simonsimc...@googlemail.com>: > > Hi, > > > > We could even combine this with the following RFC: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/object_cast_magic > > > > If an integer is required and you pass an object, it first checks if this > > object is castable to integer ;) > > > > Bye > > Simon > > > > 2012/2/29 Simon Schick <simonsimc...@googlemail.com> > > > >> 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. > >>> > >>> > >> >
