Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:62198
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nHVRZo8XCw77boMAxXtjrFxDGrCQPDAStpLSW5sA-6L5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A3182DBB9506422D9DCD5667BE48A0C4@pc>
	<CAFMT4NpOEFgDckOUdSx5x8h=H0a6FPubmyyPyvz-SMgxKgyhdw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nE-QTvXju3JayAaeLY1iDtUzWo6j+b66him11dzKAUKsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<502A86AA.2030203@sugarcrm.com>
	<E7BA2752DEBB42BF99C96CAECFBB2C80@pc>
	<CAAyV7nHVRZo8XCw77boMAxXtjrFxDGrCQPDAStpLSW5sA-6L5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:15:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSyyMRAKMHi4QV55g8ddnwOojnTDSgGtbedOvfp4vw-tFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: Stan Vass <sv_forums@fmethod.com>, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, 
	Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04428466ce9ed904c751e747
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Inline typecasting / typehinting for classes and interfaces
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--f46d04428466ce9ed904c751e747
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>wrote:

> Stan,
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Stan Vass <sv_forums@fmethod.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >>
> >>  I agree with you. The one case where this syntax may be very useful is
> if
> >>> we want to implement class casting. So introduce a pair of magic
> methods
> >>>
> >>
> >> I do not think we want to implement class casting. I'm not sure how
> >> class casting even makes sense - if the object is of one class, how can
> >> you just make it into another class by casting? If you mean "casting"
> >> actually returns another object of different class, then just make a
> >> method for that that returns that object, I do not see how obscuring the
> >> purpose of this operation with unobvious syntax would help.
> >>
> >
> > The discussion is starting to drift very far from my original proposal.
> >
> > Instead of trying to guess what I mean, can't people just refer to my
> very
> > simple definitive proposed behavior?
> >
>
> My point was that what I posted was the only way that I can see for the
> original proposal to be useful.
>
> Anthony
>

Though I'm clearly in the minority on this, I for one think this proposal
does have more merit than is being argued.  There seems to be general
agreement all around that this would provide a benefit as it pertains to
code readability-- Not just by humans, but theoretically by doc/etc parsers
as well.

This is where we get into arbitrary, subjective territory.  To me, that
benefit in and of itself is sufficient to warrant this feature.  To many of
you, it is not enough.

The tie-breaker for me is the fact that, though the benefits are modest,
there's really no noticeable cost, either.  The argument seems to,
essentially, break down as follows:  "This feature isn't worth our time."
.... "Yes, it is!" .... "No, it isn't."


There is clearly demand for this feature, even though its usefulness would
be modest.  Since it really wouldn't harm the language to just add it (if
done correctly of course), my thinking is that we should just go ahead and
add it.  If nothing else, one benefit that hasn't been mentioned is the
reduced traffic on Internals due to people no longer asking for it.  ;)

Just my three-and-a-half cents (damn inflation!).

--Kris

--f46d04428466ce9ed904c751e747--