Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123668
Feedback-ID: id5114917:Fastmail
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------cFjwWUsnuRNc4xXwhdpD5eLq"
Message-ID: <6b07cb4b-13bc-4e63-8834-fc782faab01c@rwec.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:42:42 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming "strict types" to "scalar type coercion"
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAPzBOBMidokE3xw251f+_qbCPAyQQRcN1WnyVF0xfuzaPBU3JA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <CAPzBOBMidokE3xw251f+_qbCPAyQQRcN1WnyVF0xfuzaPBU3JA@mail.gmail.com>
From: imsop.php@rwec.co.uk ("Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]")

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------cFjwWUsnuRNc4xXwhdpD5eLq
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 18/06/2024 17:37, Robert Landers wrote:
> One thing is clear is that "strict types" may be a bit of poor word
> choice and gives people a false sense of security that it is "safe" or
> "more correct" when this obviously isn't true.


I totally agree with this sentiment. I don't think it should be called 
"strict", and I don't think it should be "on or off" either.

If I had a time machine, I'd propose something like:

declare(scalar_args=coerce);
declare(scalar_args=error);

Or perhaps:

declare(coerce_scalar_args=if_safe);
declare(coerce_scalar_args=never);



But...


> Thus, I'd like to propose, for PHP 9, simply renaming it...


I'm not sure the pain is worth it. We'd have to introduce support 
gradually, probably not phasing out the old name until 10.0 at the 
earliest, so you'd just end up with more confusion with people not 
understanding if they were the same thing, which one to use in which 
version, etc.


> Perhaps it might even be worth adding a secondary vote to flip the
> default, such that if you want to "old" behavior back


You're falling into the same trap you're describing: assuming that 
strict_types=0 is an "older" mode, or a "worse" one. Both modes were 
introduced at exactly the same time, as a direct choice to users between 
two different styles, which had been proposed in competing RFCs.

Changing the default, and the name, but keeping the same behaviour, 
would just be a huge mess.


> Personally, I would rather unify non-strict and strict in some way that makes sense


I think this is where we should be focussing our attention. We've had 
some great RFCs over the last few years tightening up some of the 
weirder excesses of PHP's type juggling system.

With a tight enough definition of "numeric string" and other coercible 
values, I think "mode 0" could be strict enough that "mode 1" wouldn't 
feel so necessary.

Then again, I was broadly in favour of the original coercive-only 
proposal for scalar type parameters, and there are those who felt 
strongly on the other side. The debate was extremely heated, and I'm not 
in a hurry to reopen it.


Regards,

-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]

--------------cFjwWUsnuRNc4xXwhdpD5eLq
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/06/2024 17:37, Robert Landers
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPzBOBMidokE3xw251f+_qbCPAyQQRcN1WnyVF0xfuzaPBU3JA@mail.gmail.com">
      <pre>One thing is clear is that "strict types" may be a bit of poor word
choice and gives people a false sense of security that it is "safe" or
"more correct" when this obviously isn't true.</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>I totally agree with this sentiment. I don't think it should be
      called "strict", and I don't think it should be "on or off"
      either.<br>
    </p>
    <p>If I had a time machine, I'd propose something like:</p>
    <p>declare(scalar_args=coerce);<br>
      declare(scalar_args=error);</p>
    <p>Or perhaps:</p>
    <p>declare(coerce_scalar_args=if_safe);<br>
      declare(coerce_scalar_args=never);<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>But...</p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Thus, I'd like to propose, for PHP 9, simply renaming it...</pre>
      </blockquote>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>I'm not sure the pain is worth it. We'd have to introduce support
      gradually, probably not phasing out the old name until 10.0 at the
      earliest, so you'd just end up with more confusion with people not
      understanding if they were the same thing, which one to use in
      which version, etc.</p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Perhaps it might even be worth adding a secondary vote to flip the
default, such that if you want to "old" behavior back</pre>
      </blockquote>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>You're falling into the same trap you're describing: assuming
      that strict_types=0 is an "older" mode, or a "worse" one. Both
      modes were introduced at exactly the same time, as a direct choice
      to users between two different styles, which had been proposed in
      competing RFCs.<br>
    </p>
    <p>Changing the default, and the name, but keeping the same
      behaviour, would just be a huge mess.<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Personally, I would rather unify non-strict and strict in some way that makes sense</pre>
      </blockquote>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>I think this is where we should be focussing our attention. We've
      had some great RFCs over the last few years tightening up some of
      the weirder excesses of PHP's type juggling system.</p>
    <p>With a tight enough definition of "numeric string" and other
      coercible values, I think "mode 0" could be strict enough that
      "mode 1" wouldn't feel so necessary.<br>
    </p>
    <p>Then again, I was broadly in favour of the original coercive-only
      proposal for scalar type parameters, and there are those who felt
      strongly on the other side. The debate was extremely heated, and
      I'm not in a hurry to reopen it.<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>Regards,<br>
    </p>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]</pre>
  </body>
</html>

--------------cFjwWUsnuRNc4xXwhdpD5eLq--