Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52046 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 42783 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2011 08:35:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Apr 2011 08:35:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.143 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.143 smtp143.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.143] ([67.192.241.143:32813] helo=smtp143.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 90/D2-28716-8B629BD4 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 04:35:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp24.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9D21918020E; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 04:35:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp24.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 51069180209; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 04:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DB926B4.5000307@sugarcrm.com> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 01:35:00 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Reindl Harald CC: "internals@lists.php.net" References: <4DB923E6.3020307@sugarcrm.com> <4DB925D4.5090107@thelounge.net> In-Reply-To: <4DB925D4.5090107@thelounge.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Return type-hint From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > to find problems before your users? Sorry, this doesn't say much. It's a generic, of course we agree it's good to find bugs sooner rather than later. The question is why would that specific thing that is being proposed help - in which specific way? > the second one will produce an error if empty string is given > while an empty array would be accepted And it is better because?.. Also please note we are discussing strict return typing. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227