Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113097
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFPFaMKDELHFr44kOncQWeCi7KZUL7XLNL2JyvJvmNLTgjDBOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAG9XoMTc-7axJBQu2Skt6ng+6pU4o7gsXy+J47C5EeXyZLmZ=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <ecf37ece-51a9-5b41-5e68-cbcea3786e29@allenjb.me.uk> <CAG9XoMTsgrQetKA9jkZC9-pxq7aYSgS3FEWLPMmTjSE_vS70GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+p1FaaB-84BteyC6k0EMqUFwsDmozsAYys9ZYKsr34DBgQ7=Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+p1FaaB-84BteyC6k0EMqUFwsDmozsAYys9ZYKsr34DBgQ7=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2021 01:17:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAG9XoMS2C8miP2-wEPYBOT6q+5CAs2y4E_5cQuGYg7y6yf-o9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Gebler <davidgebler@gmail.com>
Cc: AllenJB <allen@allenjb.me.uk>, "G. P. B." <george.banyard@gmail.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000064e19d05ba9fdd9f"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Warning for implicit float to int conversions
From: benjamin.morel@gmail.com (Benjamin Morel)

--00000000000064e19d05ba9fdd9f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 at 00:46, David Gebler <davidgebler@gmail.com> wrote:

> Generating a warning on explicit casts of (non-integer) floats to int
> would IMO make no sense at all, it would put PHP at odds with other major
> languages such as C, Python and Java and go against normal, reasonable
> expectations of how a programming language behaves.
>
> You said in an earlier comment "it's better to be explicit about your
> intent", but doing something like (int)3.5 *is* being explicit about your
> intent - and truncating casts on float to int is the widely established
> norm.
>
> This was exactly my reservation about deprecating this behaviour even as
> an implicit cast - in my mind it isn't a bug or flaw, it's there by desig=
n.
>
> If developers want to round/ceil/floor/do whatever with a float prior to
> using it as an int, they already have that option and the greatest
> flexibility.
>
> At least with the implicit case, I understand the motivation and argument
> for bringing coercion more in line with strict typing behaviour and
> catching cases where such a cast may not have been intentional (though I
> still think a warning is too high an error level for this and would favou=
r
> a notice or deprecation, were it to be done at all).
>

Let's agree to disagree on what would be the ideal behaviour of type casts.
I do understand that it would be a big concern for BC if (int) stopped
working for floats with a fractional part.

Could we at least fix the odd cases where the cast is definitely a failure?
Like:

(int) 1e60; // 0
(int) "foo"; // 0

=E2=80=94 Benjamin

--00000000000064e19d05ba9fdd9f--