Andrea, With all the respect this RFC is way worst than the v0.1:
We still have a BC break but now we also have code with **mutant** behavior that might become buggy (do unexpected things) if a `declare` is used. As a language user and a package maintainer it would be a huge problem. Imagine how would be to maintain a package that can be used with both strict and coercive type checking. We would have to write 2x more tests and yet pollute code with manual type checks (is_string, is_integer) for the non strict runtime mode when type check is necessary. This RFC is a huge regression, IMMO, -1 here 2015-01-14 5:22 GMT-03:00 Robert Stoll <p...@tutteli.ch>: > Hi Andrea > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me] > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2015 01:17 > > An: PHP Internals List > > Betreff: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Scalar Type Hints v0.2 > > > > Good evening, > > > > I’ve made some quite significant changes to my Scalar Type Hints RFC, > and bumped its version to 0.2. > > > > Here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/scalar_type_hints > > > > This is a new thread because I’ve made a significant revision to the > RFC, so it’d be sensible to separate discussion of the > > updated RFC from the v0.1 RFC. > > > > Please tell me your thoughts. > > > > Thanks! > > -- > > Andrea Faulds > > http://ajf.me/ > > > > -- > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, > visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > I had a few thoughts on the new proposed declare(strict_typehints=TRUE); > construct and I must say I do not really like that we would have different > behaviour just based on a directive. This is quite ugly from a readability > point of view since I as user cannot easily see whether somewhere (above) > in the code the directive was set (I have changed my mind a little bit > below - left it here for traceability purposes). Which brings me to the > question what happens with the following code: > > function foo(int $a){} //is weak right? > declare(strict_typehinting=TRUE); > > > I guess it is weak since you wrote: "If this boolean value is TRUE, strict > type-checking mode is used for function calls in the remainder of the file" > Maybe it is a good idea to add such an example to the examples as well. > > Now, having rethought my own email, I think we should enforce some code > style to avoid a huge mess. Why not declare that the directive needs to be > the very first statement inside a namespace scope (unless the directive > block syntax is used). This way it would be easily verifiable for the user > if strict mode is in place or not. But then again, we could also argue that > is up to code conventions/code guidelines and they should specify whether > mixing both modes is ok and where the directive has to be placed. So > re-rethinking what I just wrote I would say it is fine as it is now but we > should at least consider if we want to enforce some code practice to avoid > a mess. > > Now another point: "Whether or not the function being called was declared > in a file that uses strict or weak type checking is entirely irrelevant. > The type checking mode depends on the file where the function is called." > Seems quite strange to me but fair enough, why not -- actually makes > perfectly sense for this RFC -> leaving it to the user to decide what > he/she likes :-) > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
