Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:44923 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 70141 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2009 15:43:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Jul 2009 15:43:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=zeev@zend.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=zeev@zend.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.25.124.185 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: zeev@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.25.124.185 il-mr1.zend.com Received: from [212.25.124.185] ([212.25.124.185:35018] helo=il-mr1.zend.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id AA/77-37812-BB1675A4 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:43:56 -0400 Received: from il-gw1.zend.com (unknown [10.1.1.21]) by il-mr1.zend.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D40650539; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:45:14 +0300 (IDT) Received: from lap-zeev.zend.com ([10.1.11.100]) by il-gw1.zend.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:44:35 +0300 Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090710184112.0dfad7b0@zend.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:44:02 +0300 To: Pierre Joye Cc: internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090708224156.0ac5a438@zend.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2009 15:44:35.0160 (UTC) FILETIME=[532ADD80:01CA0175] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Type hinting - Request for Discussion From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski) At 10:42 10/07/2009, Pierre Joye wrote: >hi, > >I'm still in favour of #2 (Ilia's patch) as I don't see a real benefit >of a weak typing implementation, it defeats the main goal of this >addition. I'm also still opposed to add such thing in 5.3.x. Can you elaborate on what is the main goal of this addition that using weak-typing implementation instead would defeat? (with emphasis on use case(s) including both calling & called code, otherwise we'd be back and forth on a matter of pure personal preference). Zeev