Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:58283 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 65748 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2012 21:44:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Feb 2012 21:44:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ceo@l-i-e.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ceo@l-i-e.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain l-i-e.com designates 67.139.134.202 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ceo@l-i-e.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.139.134.202 o2.hostbaby.com FreeBSD 4.7-5.2 (or MacOS X 10.2-10.3) (2) Received: from [67.139.134.202] ([67.139.134.202:1661] helo=o2.hostbaby.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A3/E5-36673-DBA4D4F4 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:44:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 19286 invoked by uid 98); 28 Feb 2012 21:44:31 -0000 Received: from localhost by o2.hostbaby.com (envelope-from , uid 1013) with qmail-scanner-2.05 ( Clear:RC:1(127.0.0.1):. Processed in 0.057835 secs); 28 Feb 2012 21:44:31 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO www.l-i-e.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Feb 2012 21:44:30 -0000 Received: from webmail (SquirrelMail authenticated user ceo@l-i-e.com) by www.l-i-e.com with HTTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:44:31 -0600 Message-ID: <693e15008681dfe7372eaea66214f8a8.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1330357150.2159.30.camel@guybrush> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:44:31 -0600 To: "internals@lists.php.net" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar type hinting From: ceo@l-i-e.com ("Richard Lynch") On Mon, February 27, 2012 4:34 pm, Kris Craig wrote: > I think this is the main reason for differentiating between "strong" > (or > whatever word is appropriate) and "weak." The developer may very well > want > their script to blow-up in such a case. I believe I actually "get it" now... You want 3 layers: $a = "1"; //current kosher unchanged weak int $a = "1"; // some E_x error level strong int $a = "1"; // some E_y error level where E_y > E_x Is that a correct summation? -- brain cancer update: http://richardlynch.blogspot.com/search/label/brain%20tumor Donate: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FS9NLTNEEKWBE