Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59001
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJWj5+Eg5h7p=o5JRxw8gsRsT_LGGadMbNUqx5RxzRPif6u+Dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJWj5+EwBpeMV__6SN7NbzQ0y4=RDGyg_HueU4N4AZz3Kb=CRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADyq6sL2zbnqcYLpc7UrctPqdK+5TYztytKCxjdVUqUidsRN2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<A633CF2D7C7BED41B41F1E64F25507B806A48BEC0C@MAILR001.mail.lan>
	<CAJWj5+Eg5h7p=o5JRxw8gsRsT_LGGadMbNUqx5RxzRPif6u+Dw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 12:12:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJWj5+EfPh7oFq3NRH8iDSwU8kzhYQQfWByrbNHZO5dFdDQWGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Crenshaw <johncrenshaw@priacta.com>
Cc: Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>, PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar-type-hinting - which way is the best to go?
From: simonsimcity@googlemail.com (Simon Schick)

2012/3/18 Simon Schick <simonsimcity@googlemail.com>:
> 2012/3/18 John Crenshaw <johncrenshaw@priacta.com>:
>>
>>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 2. Unenforced type hinting:
>>
>> This almost happened in 5.4, but eventually got pulled. More interesting=
ly, the *community* rejected it because it is useless. See the comments at =
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/archives/900-Scalar-Type-Hints-in-PHP-5.3.99.h=
tml for a good picture of why people hated this idea. Previous discussions =
on this mailing list also point out that this idea would ultimately be a de=
ad end (a very good catch by...someone...).
>>
>
> Hi, John
>
> Thanks for clarifying that way.
> I understand why some people want to have that ... to please really
> all people ... make a solution that fits for EVERYONE.
>
> But that would (on the other hand) cause way more confusion if you're
> working with different projects (using Sebastian Bergmanns example)
> ... one implementing this the way we would implement "Strict type
> hinting" - because that's what he wants ... and another one is
> implementing it as "Casting weak type hinting" ... and so on.
>
> I know that the user still has to add some code, but I don't like the
> fact to have additional type-hinting that's just doing nothing - and
> the user is then adding it if he wants.
>
> I'm still for the 3rd solution as it is most likely the current
> type-hint and is not that strict as the first solution. Just to have
> it consistent.
> What I like most here: All parameters that can be converted to the
> wanted format without loosing something are accepted, all other will
> stop the execution of the script.
>
> Bye
> Simon

Hi, All

Just to add an example why I want a more strictly type-check here as
we have in the current type-juggling:
http://www.brandonsavage.net/an-xss-vulerability-in-the-making/?utm_source=
=3Drss&utm_medium=3Drss&utm_campaign=3Dan-xss-vulerability-in-the-making

Bye
Simon