Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:56997 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 83962 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2011 14:52:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Dec 2011 14:52:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=addw@phcomp.co.uk; sender-id=permerror Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=addw@phcomp.co.uk; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain phcomp.co.uk designates 78.32.209.33 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: addw@phcomp.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 78.32.209.33 freshmint.phcomp.co.uk Linux 2.6 Received: from [78.32.209.33] ([78.32.209.33:63582] helo=mint.phcomp.co.uk) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 90/F0-12618-21443FE4 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:52:02 -0500 Received: from addw by mint.phcomp.co.uk with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Rdjzz-0000xX-6T for internals@lists.php.net; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:51:59 +0000 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:51:59 +0000 To: internals@lists.php.net Message-ID: <20111222145159.GY25857@phcomp.co.uk> Mail-Followup-To: internals@lists.php.net References: <2095305E-D4E3-4D7E-8218-32EE99688E0C@GMAIL.COM> <2C90FB94-38C4-4270-8C6A-B89304BA8ED8@gmail.com> <159A7CA2-8561-40DA-9434-CAAE12304DDB@gmail.com> <005701ccc0b3$58c8dee0$0a5a9ca0$@alliantinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Organization: Parliament Hill Computers Ltd Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Return Type Hinting for Methods RFC From: addw@phcomp.co.uk (Alain Williams) On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 03:33:40PM +0100, Sebastian Krebs wrote: > > private \ArrayObject $customers; > > > > Once more "Why is PHP not Java?" That comment confuses matters. People use PHP for all sorts of reasons, the desire to tighten up in some places, on some occasions, should not be treated with derision. Tighter declarations, or any declarations at all, would not be mandatory. It would be something that some projects might want to do. It would be nice if this could be done on a module but module basis ... eg the implementors of a class library might want to be really strict while allowing the class users to not be strict. Just because Java has a feature that you appear to not like, does not mean that others might not want it in some circumstances. -- Alain Williams Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer. +44 (0) 787 668 0256 http://www.phcomp.co.uk/ Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php #include