Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38304
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.25.124.162 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4856E78D.6020100@zend.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:22:05 -0700
Organization: Zend Technologies
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Stockton <chrisstocktonaz@gmail.com>
CC: internals@lists.php.net
References: <46ccd1ab0804170742g142ed562t4f03339da549a820@mail.gmail.com>	 <48077BD2.2000107@zend.com>	 <e2e02fe0804170950udd38ab3m21e6d658254f042a@mail.gmail.com>	 <48078168.1070801@zend.com>	 <496536410.20080525103752@marcus-boerger.de>	 <483929DC.2060606@zend.com>	 <e2e02fe0806151212o3b22ada0wd885cf635961a1e0@mail.gmail.com>	 <4856D4EF.4000002@zend.com> <e2e02fe0806161504s2838c79dhe85f7cbd541012e2@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e2e02fe0806161504s2838c79dhe85f7cbd541012e2@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Strict type hints (parameter and return value)
From: stas@zend.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> I get this, really, I do, again. Like the previous post I (likely we) 
> understand.

Unfortunately, it looks like you do not. Probably my failure to explain 
it clearly.

> Did you not get or read my post? You say again and again 1 == '1', but 
> you are forgetting those OTHER operators, === and !==. 1 !== '1' does 
> it? ====>Add numeric hinting like I said 50 posts ago and your 1 == '1' 

I do not talk about the bits in the engine and how all the operators 
work. I talk about how the user thinks (or should think) about using 
PHP. Yes, === exists for a reason. But, in most cases == is what you 
really want, that's why it got to be ==.

> the API level. People who want to make it strictly integer, will 

Again, people who want to make it strictly integer are wrong in 90% of 
the cases. Because of that, giving them more tools to be wrong in 90% of 
the cases is... well, wrong :) Other 10% are possible, but they do not 
belong to the language syntax.

> continue to do so as they do now. You can not, and should not want to, 
> control the way people program.

When you design the language, that's what you do, to some measure. You 
program differently in C, Prolog, LISP, Javascript or PHP. At least, you 
should - otherwise you are working against the grain of the language and 
only make yourself work harder then necessary.
Of course, you want to give people more tools - but some tools just 
don't belong there. That's why C[++] has operator* and PHP does not.

> But I know this will never happen because no one cares what users 
> want... your logic of

You seem to confuse "what users want" with "what I want". I don't get 
all I want from PHP too, and sometimes I think it's wrong. But I also 
know it is not possible for PHP to satisfy 100% of feature requests from 
everybody - and even if it were, it would make PHP worse, not better. 
PHP is in constant process of improvement, so claiming "no one cares 
what users want" is just contrary to the facts.

> How in the world, does this remotely, possibly, even slightly make sense?

It doesn't, because you wrote it so on purpose, to misrepresent my 
position. The position is simple. PHP has certain set of ideas behind 
it, and certain way of doing things. Having strict hints in function 
definitions promotes entirely different way of doing things, which fits 
compiled languages much better and dynamic language like PHP much worse.
-- 
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com   http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829   MSN: stas@zend.com