On 4/17/2016 5:58 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > And this is where the likes of Hack should be exactly where you are > working ... The vast majority of grass roots users don't need another > layer of complexity loaded on top of what IS a perfectly functional > platform. Adding types, complicating procedure calls and lumbering > everything with 'optional' layers of complexity is not something that a > small jobbing shop user has time to investigate the implications on his > client base. I'm still working through code that other have written and > trying to in many cases unravel exotic code that no longer fits the > modern programming style. I no longer take on any new clients as there > is enough work keeping my existing client base working, but there are a > LOT of people still using PHP5.2/3 who now need help if they are ever to > be brought forward. > > Now if you were proposing something that actually validated the data > fully rather than some very restricted 'type' elements then it might be > worth the effort, but 'int' is only a very small part of validating a > number and we still need the rest of the validation library after you > install a replacement for that bit mf it ... >
Union and intersection types already get us closer to stricter data types that are flexible too. Of course they are not the best solution. I already mentioned in another mail that operator overloading is the only way to get us there. It is the only thing that allows us to create truly meaningful types. However, the problem of primitives remains, as was illustrated in this and related threads multiple types, e.g. `array|Traversable`. -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
