Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108235 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 71868 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2020 22:43:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 24 Jan 2020 22:43:34 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DEA418053E for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:53:04 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-wm1-f51.google.com (mail-wm1-f51.google.com [209.85.128.51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:53:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-f51.google.com with SMTP id a5so766745wmb.0 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:53:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=oO8OPXEDaHorxPIG4MfRynHBpp2IKL73HTIbrrbPAQ4=; b=HWDEKY2rs9CczfW9UWLZRRwFILXDNS5lhEzgpze/sp6Qi5EiZ3JZMMmpZQ6pWjPu9z zbmR/9vJTf2HpfUGhSikhh+8BXGlVJ2joaNCpLjkodUeovw4af3v4yBZn6iDN3l0fYYr zFOOw6kqX0H7SJh3shUCa4a1OfWSVp3jP9CygGTW9bLAxbvtFrVFX1k7imnbaSeHAwrj c68csGNJS4KPeV/vq3Qoz6aUvGfAd8czC362S6Fd4VESW5Bsxq1YBvKi9sGmJ7GHXYJp karKHqnufxVFlBQZ9GxhfnRs0FkdoCZrsXlnawTTsVMTmJi3DStFIsldgN1Q/8YfH+XM 9LXw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=oO8OPXEDaHorxPIG4MfRynHBpp2IKL73HTIbrrbPAQ4=; b=laIvu8nU0kAGT21/QO4t6073mINluHVWMTfle9Dwgz5HkgXeZ9oD/c0hHeJlbNw/+b FDN15pmwevZVAcMVcYY/G/vKAjIDORYczyKeBdY/j1UVNxkqtdtJJEhV0T6eYtuepzu5 AeKlp9az7Nkrn+aN+gb/gkzKyl4toQdWx83jq17gmQPVqUZjArWsZF7CjlOdLW11yjUm zVtIRXFstkl+l1r9Ynd7NJviFGRW4m57eoxVxdP2ls5+dncTXKQnQ9gtPSJFNzi+JuPL 6myStEuSzHn5uFeSgX5RQ9WQOQTndrfwuoWjMwTNNpkfBnS01rNkgvjOweovsKongU9O XL0A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVOemhrgVMK8nJzhSfsr28POR/iQTXvoOiQtLqF6Bt9OpufaUCc HNQbxO/NHyG24Ey6WIY+tYnHmrfj X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwNiQmTbmUCiia1SnV27DZB0r7C5YV+mkaP54j8Ompg+FY6I7PC4HNUMkcURZ1RhHiF7gB1sQ== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cc69:: with SMTP id n9mr901828wmj.164.1579899175399; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:52:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.14] (cpc84253-brig22-2-0-cust114.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [81.108.141.115]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id z11sm9166988wrt.82.2020.01.24.12.52.54 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:52:54 -0800 (PST) To: internals@lists.php.net References: Message-ID: <4bed4637-8df3-1c3a-f260-b73b11b8d807@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 20:52:52 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Typed array properties V2 From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins) On 24/01/2020 19:27, Mike Schinkel wrote: > ALLOW the use of a syntax for typed arrays — whether it be type[] or [type] — but only validate that it is an array and that the "type" is in fact a type, but don't actually validate that each element is the correct type. I don't really see much point in that. Tools are happily reading this information from docblocks already, so all I can see this achieving is: 1) Misleading users into thinking the language will guarantee something when it won't. 2) Making it harder to use that syntax for a different purpose later, because code will be out there which lists such constraints but violates them, and will suddenly fail if the checks are enforced. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins (né Collins) [IMSoP]