Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:58784
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <op.waurnkmoidpuyk@slws007.slhq.int>
References: <CAJRMtAGqZCWThbZVztGN3-FyQ4MkJAs=uO_V-6pUCy9q2aAaZw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSyas7HSDXD5bftK9o18ucYAfQvxRtTUjYOgRSv_4nY-9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJWj5+EQhhYDTh8DHwv2N4pk8FQybX3P5H292BGixbHSLB7k3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nGQFrMoneDKvr0s1djOOkjn6rMj6PJcuB0842eA8EefOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<52.38.15021.3A1E65F4@pb1.pair.com>
	<4F570EBB.6030103@sugarcrm.com>
	<60744d7ea642fe03c7110502a3f4276a@mohiva.com>
	<CAAyV7nGZdq+TYU3eiQXj5CtEkRs84u_oOXRB7m+RNseU1QtG+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL0xaBHC8vFSnuezWwWqsBczHZA3uvgpb+K3z3z87Mc2Gbeseg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJWj5+HDyBvMGN7HiHBBEswr67s=tEfsTd3mHbzfeAZRrVmB2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL0xaBGAHfOSR1g4meDsJfczBTR0dOfypBjHLXGT7h9o5T7eeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH5SkZw2rSsqp5rYvfWtqCmQK6P+vU67zOgPiZ6sZ+Xedw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nHR5RzuZ2t7keyJ_Q_Hu__WED-12Z49Mpju2GXt=k5LEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<op.waurnkmoidpuyk@slws007.slhq.int>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:41:41 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nFFau2OtdcHxDyB6XAhmK39eR7Hj9MW-pJL=r+B271xCw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gustavo Lopes <glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt>
Cc: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>, Arvids Godjuks <arvids.godjuks@gmail.com>, 
	Simon Schick <simonsimcity@googlemail.com>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar Type Hinting
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

Gustavo,

> Not really, that's just a convention that if zpp fails functions return null
> or false immediately (which one is used depends on the extension, current
> weather, etc.). That's because there's a convention that builtin functions
> don't raise exceptions. But nothings stops them from falling back or
> suppressing the warning/notice (and some do, esp. if they support distinct
> sets of arguments).
>
> Some extensions (and constructors even in extensions that use false for
> error) actually force an exception if zpp fails (usually via
> zend_replace_error_handling).

Quite fair...

> But of course this is not an option in user code because:
> 1) you can't change the error handling before parsing the parameters and
> 2) inside the function you can't tell whether some argument parsing error
> occurred.

Which is the point.

> So E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR in the cases where zpp would return FAILURE seems in
> fact the only viable option, even with the disadvantages it has
> (centralization and lack of flexibility).

So, at that point, then it sounds like we have a spec.  Functionality
of zpp, with an E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR where zpp would fail.  Including
any warnings or notices that zpp would have raised anyway (since
`"1abc" would work when passed to an int, it should still work, notice
intact).

> Still, the fact that 100% consistency is not possible is not a strong
> argument against at least *some* consistency and in favor of inventing new
> rules.

Sure.  Makes sense.

I'll work on a proof-of-concept this weekend.  That is if nobody else
wants to take it (or beats me to it) :-D.

Thanks,

Anthony