Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:58347 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 81163 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2012 20:31:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Feb 2012 20:31:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=kris.craig@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=kris.craig@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.170 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: kris.craig@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.212.170 mail-wi0-f170.google.com Received: from [209.85.212.170] ([209.85.212.170:39685] helo=mail-wi0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C8/57-46815-E1B8E4F4 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:31:27 -0500 Received: by wibhj13 with SMTP id hj13so1024159wib.29 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:31:23 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kris.craig@gmail.com designates 10.180.101.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.180.101.37; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kris.craig@gmail.com designates 10.180.101.37 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kris.craig@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=kris.craig@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.180.101.37]) by 10.180.101.37 with SMTP id fd5mr639432wib.1.1330547483907 (num_hops = 1); Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:31:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=RuicRC/MrKkQfzWkjXpyiCgdS8pJdqxo8552bGpWqDU=; b=rWeJLTkZJ2pL+4AeLBTPzbLAznQXFTElva5BLXjkeW32ssZ/npAbpLYMWevIRL8jdd lxnxqO12cxzOH0l0RUZCq8vSvIgVd5I50g25p0E88gcMHFYmHPUbh6M2FZ05gB/JdNV7 dhloQkB6BjV1sLVXCI97PfZHg6xy0q12ZJIQ4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.101.37 with SMTP id fd5mr524417wib.1.1330547483824; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:31:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.75.146 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:31:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <693e15008681dfe7372eaea66214f8a8.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com> <4F4D5D44.5090307@developersdesk.com> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:31:23 -0800 Message-ID: To: Simon Schick Cc: Richard Lynch , internals@lists.php.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044281582150c804ba203a25 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar type hinting From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig) --f46d044281582150c804ba203a25 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 And here's a thought: I could structure the RFC so that the voting will have 3 choices: Yes with strong/weak differentiation, yes without strong/weak, or no. However, the voting RFC doesn't cover how the tally should be calculated in such a circumstance. For example, let's say we had 8 votes yes with differentiation, 2 votes yes without differentiation, and 5 votes no. If we tally the two "yes" columns, it's 10 - 5, which would be the required 2/3 majority. However, how would we calculate the mandate on differentiation? Among those who voted yes, there's a clear 8 - 2 (80%) majority in favor of it. But if you count the no votes as being no to differentiation and add them to the total, it suddenly becomes 8 - 7, which falls short of the 2/3 majority. An argument could be made that these people who voted no would not want differentiation, but another argument could be made that; while they don't like the idea, if it does happen they'd rather have it differentiated than not. In other words, determining voter intent from that group would be difficult and thus only tallying among the yes votes would make sense. Both arguments would have about equal merit I think The voting RFC does allow for different "options" in the vote, but it does not elaborate on this. We could break the "no" group into two as well, though that could make things a bit too confusing. Since there's presently no clear procedure on this (at least none that I'm aware of), what are your thoughts on this? I do believe the two should be in the same vote since they're pretty integral to one another, but I'm not sure how best to do that while maintaining accurate results without making it too complicated. --Kris On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Kris Craig wrote: > @Simon Agreed. That's pretty much what I'm thinking it should look like. > > With booleans, I think you have a good point. If 1 or 0 is passed to a > bool, I'd say that should be fine without an error. If you were to pass a > 2, though (you insolent bastard!), then it would throw the error. > > > I think we're getting pretty close to having enough to write an RFC for > this. I'll go ahead and create one after a little more discussion goes > around. > > --Kris > > > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Simon Schick < > simonsimcity@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, Kris >> >> I don't think we have to care about scripts that are written right now if >> we're talking about throwing an E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR or E_WARNING because >> this feature is completely new. But I like the idea to have all type-hint >> failures ending up the same way. >> >> I personally would keep the error-messages for classes and arrays as they >> are right now and do the same error in case the given value is not >> compatible to the expected type. >> Not compatible means that data gets lost after converting the data into >> the other data-type. >> >> Lets have an example: >> >> function foo(integer $i) { >> // do something >> } >> >> foo(true); // Even if Boolean is a lower type than int, it can be easily >> casted to an int. It's equivalent to 1. >> foo("1"); // wont throw an error because the transformation into an >> integer is loose-less >> foo(2.5); // Throws an E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR because its a float, but an >> integer is required here. >> foo("horse"); // Throws an E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR because if you transform >> "horse" into a float, it's 1 and that's not equal to the string anymore. >> >> I personally would treat float - int miss matches the same way as all >> other stuff, because it cannot be converted loose-less. >> >> And if the Object-cast-stuff comes through, we have to think about this >> in addition: >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/object_cast_magic >> >> class MyInteger { >> public function __castTo(string $type) { >> if ($type === "integer") >> return 5; >> } >> } >> >> function foo(integer $i) { >> // do something >> } >> >> foo(new MyInteger()); // Even if this is an object - it's cast-able to >> an integer and therefore should be valid >> >> But this is just in case the RFC gets through ;) We don't have to think >> that much about it now - just keep it in mind. >> >> Bye >> Simon >> >> >> 2012/2/29 Kris Craig >> >>> Now that I think of it, this would probably be a good argument for >>> differentiating between strong and weak. Looking back to my previous >>> comment, it probably would be best to have it behave the same regardless >>> of >>> what the incompatible type is. But in the case where a float might sneak >>> its way into an int, the developer might decide that going with a weak >>> type >>> would make it more flexible (though if it was me, I'd just do a round or >>> leave it a mixed type lol). >>> >>> --Kris >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Kris Craig >>> wrote: >>> >>> > @Richard I think you made a very good point. Should we treat a float >>> => >>> > int mismatch the same as we would a string => int mismatch, or should >>> the >>> > former fail more gracefully? I can see good arguments for both. >>> > >>> > --Kris >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Lynch wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Tue, February 28, 2012 5:17 pm, Kris Craig wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Some cases I would find interesting to be explained: >>> >> >>> >> (using 'streak' for strong and/or weak, feel free to separate the two) >>> >> >>> >> streak int $i = 123.456; //Common idiom for floor() >>> >> streak int $i = "123.456"; //In contrast to previous >>> >> streak int $i = "1 "; //value="1 " is ridiculously common HTML >>> >> >>> >> It's all well and good to say that any loss of data is "bad" and to >>> >> raise some E_* for it, but there are some idioms so common that feel >>> >> "wrong" as I consider them... >>> >> >>> >> If everyone "for" the new type hinting/forcing can reach consensus on >>> >> these sorts of cases, it would help clarify any RFCs a bit, I think >>> >> >>> >> wrt E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR vs E_WARNING >>> >> >>> >> If current type hinting raises E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR, I have no >>> >> objection to following that lead, with the explicit caveat that a >>> >> change to the existing type-hinting to E_WARNING, as unlikely as that >>> >> seems, would pull the new "streak" with it. >>> >> >>> >> I don't even object to using E_ERROR for the "strong" variant, if that >>> >> passes review, really, since "strong" is, errr, strong. :-) >>> >> >>> >> Anybody who doesn't like the E_* can re-define them in a custom error >>> >> handler anyway, though allowing PHP to continue after E_ERROR is like >>> >> playing russian roulette... >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> 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 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>> >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >> > --f46d044281582150c804ba203a25--