Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49367 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 85830 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2010 19:22:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Aug 2010 19:22:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=zeev@zend.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=zeev@zend.com; spf=pass; 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] ([212.25.124.185:46145] helo=il-mr1.zend.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 70/50-18548-568F26C4 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:22:15 -0400 Received: from il-gw1.zend.com (unknown [10.1.1.21]) by il-mr1.zend.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 868E550539; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:21:56 +0300 (IDT) Received: from LAP-ZEEV.zend.com ([10.1.20.50]) by il-gw1.zend.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:22:09 +0300 Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100811214923.1540f9a0@zend.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:22:00 +0300 To: Derick Rethans Cc: Stas Malyshev , PHP Internals In-Reply-To: References: <4C62EC4A.9020106@sugarcrm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Aug 2010 19:22:09.0285 (UTC) FILETIME=[7E070350:01CB398A] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] back to 5.4 alpha From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski) Derick, How is it different from having both options? Given enough time isn't it exactly the same thing? Argument verification should not be a customizable feature. Collecting the info (for documentation purposes and reflection) is something else and I think that's fine - and then the only question that remains is the syntax (which IIRC includes modifiers for strict/weak that we should probably clean up). Zeev At 21:38 11/08/2010, Derick Rethans wrote: >On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Stas Malyshev wrote: > > > So I'd propose doing the following: > > > > 1. Moving parameter typing to a feature branch (by branching > current trunk and > > then rolling back the typing part in the trunk). > > 2. Starting 5.4 alpha process after that basing on trunk. > > > > Any objections to this? > >A little bit; yes. There is indeed 0 consensus for having the strict >typehints. However, instead of removing it altogether, and instead >answering every mail in this thread :P, I wrote/am writing a patch that >removes the hard type checks. It however keeps the parsed structures and >reflection API for it. In this sense, they're actually real hints. The >patch also adds a mechanism similariy to the zend_error_cb mechanism so >that extensions could override the argument type checking. As my use >case for strict checking is development I'd be happy to just move the >hard checks into an extension. I could even offer a soft check. It also >allows some type inference which might be useful for webservice >introspecition generation. I am sure SOAP might have some benefit of >this, and I know that at least pecl/dbus does. The patch is attached, >but not ready (I haven't remove the hard checks yet because things got >busy at work). > >Derick > >-- >http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org >Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php >twitter: @derickr and @xdebug > >-- >PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php