On 10/04/2019 18:34, Benjamin Morel wrote:
So why would you have different semantics for implicit `(?int)` cast vs `:
?int` function return type cast, if they're both *out*?
Return type cast has the same semantics as parameter type cast.
I would have to disagree with this as I think of "return" as a language
construct function that takes one argument. When a return type is
specified, that return function effectively inherits that type for its
only argument, and limitations on implicit conversion should apply.
This looks weird to me. I would expect this last line to throw anyway.
Having "foo" passed somehow where your code expects an int(ish) or null,
should not be silenced and converted to NULL IMO.
To me, this last line just says "ignore any error here" - a bit like
prefixing it with @.
That's exactly what it is, and thanks to null coalescence, you then have
an easy available ability to either check if it succeeded, or default to
another value.
$items = (?int)$_GET['items'];
if ($items === null) {
// it didn't just resort to 0, which might be perfectly valid
throw new Exception('Unsure how many items');
}
$value = (?string)$_GET['name'] ?? '';
if ($value === '') {
// also, ?name[]= can sod off
throw new Exception('You must provide a name');
}
--
Mark Randall
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
