Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:34422 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 45505 invoked by uid 1010); 4 Jan 2008 17:37:27 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 45490 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2008 17:37:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 4 Jan 2008 17:37:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=robert@interjinn.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=robert@interjinn.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain interjinn.com from 66.11.173.122 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: robert@interjinn.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 66.11.173.122 unknown Received: from [66.11.173.122] ([66.11.173.122:49205] helo=blobule.interjinn.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 05/4E-63281-4DE6E774 for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:37:26 -0500 Received: by blobule.interjinn.com (Postfix, from userid 2000) id E56F05AD4B9; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 12:37:21 -0500 (EST) To: Pierre Cc: Marcus Boerger , Gregory Beaver , Alain Williams , internals Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: <477DB7BF.10201@chiaraquartet.net> <20080104105558.GC7861@mint.phcomp.co.uk> <477E5649.2080104@chiaraquartet.net> <1463438959.20080104182050@marcus-boerger.de> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: InterJinn Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:37:19 -0500 Message-ID: <1199468241.6629.53.camel@blobule> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] type hinting From: robert@interjinn.com (Robert Cummings) On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 18:23 +0100, Pierre wrote: > On Jan 4, 2008 6:20 PM, Marcus Boerger wrote: > > Hello Pierre, > > > > we never accepted this as a pro argument. Infact we often saw the > > necessaity to highlight something is optional to vote against it. We do this > > for a reason. That is we only want to support mainstream features. > > My point of view is that this feature should be a mainstream feature. > To make it optional was to lower the issues for those who don't care > about argument strictness. We did not give them this choice for the OO > strictness. IMHO, optionally inclusion of type hinting for functions/methods can only be a boon to code quality and readability. IMHO when a type hint is provided and a parameter doesn't match the type hint then I think a fatal error should occur. This forces the user of the function that has type hinting to ensure their data is of the correct type. This prevents accidental wrong data conversion. However, I see the other side of the coin too where automatic type conversion could be desirable also. Perhaps a mixed solution would be viable? Contrast versus: Versus (still allowed default style): Thoughts? Cheers, Rob. -- ........................................................... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ...........................................................