On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <ras...@lerdorf.com> > wrote: > > > On 02/17/2015 04:35 PM, Nikita Popov wrote: > > > I don't buy into Rasmus arguments about internal functions. They > concern > > > one particular edge case (int->float coercion) and I doubt they have > much > > > relevance if applied to codebases with pervasive use of typehints > (where > > > you can be reasonably sure of the types of your variables). Even if, > for > > > the sake of argument, we acknowledge the concern as valid we should be > > > discussing that particular case (int->float coercion) rather than > > dropping > > > the strict typing for internal functions altogether. > > > > int->float is actually secondary to "123"->int. And while they may be > > edge-cases there are enough of them that we would be pushing people > > towards casting by default which should be a last-resort thing, not the > > first thing you do. > > > > The inability to implicitly cast "123" to int is pretty much the KEY > distinction between weak and strict scalar typehints (those pesky > value-dependent type checks). If the strict typing mode doesn't offer this, > what's the point at all? > > This is exactly what I fear will happen with an arginfo based approach. If > even fundamental aspects like the "123" vs 123 (or true vs 1) distinction > are suppressed for internal functions, this isn't a strict typing mode, > it's just a weak typing mode with slightly different rules. > > The difference between true and 1 is even more strict than rules of statically typed languages. Could you write a short list, where the strict types are really useful. In my opinion it's only program verification, but for this case we may enable strict typing by a tool and not in the language definition (we may provide callback in the core). Thanks. Dmitry. > Nikita >
