Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75461
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain devilix.net designates 209.85.219.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <53C3DADE.1040806@gmail.com>
References: <08503591-EFC8-48E6-984E-FFC292C5EA5F@ajf.me>
	<16D48604-0C0A-4613-91A4-21392E3A2636@ajf.me>
	<DAE582FE-DABD-42DD-A0C3-ACB5C1BEA6AD@gmail.com>
	<CAPhkiZwu6FR4wgZijhAByeXa30y8917xXuE5y7ry84Btq2DnZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53C3DADE.1040806@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:44:33 +0300
Message-ID: <CAPhkiZwODDD0J0DYLVncgMM5GzWNg7_09gXcMx02EqOCdps5dA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Scalar Type Hinting With Casts (re-opening)
From: narf@devilix.net (Andrey Andreev)

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> Andrey Andreev wrote (on 14/07/2014):
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Alexey Zakhlestin <indeyets@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Some people talk about inconsistency, which is introduced by reusing sa=
me
>>> syntax for "strict parameter types" and "scalar parameter casts=E2=80=
=9D. There=E2=80=99s
>>> some truth there.
>>> Let=E2=80=99s use different syntax.
>>>
>>> This might work:
>>>
>>>      function foo((int) $a)
>>>      {
>>>          var_dump($a);
>>>      }
>>>
>>> I would read it as declaration-level casting
>>
>> I strongly support this.
>>
>> What we currently have with class/array typing is a different behavior
>> (regardless of the details behind it), and this syntax would make that
>> noticeable, which is a great thing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andrey.
>>
>
> Please could you both read the existing messages in this thread. Yes, tha=
t
> has been proposed already, and several people support it.
>
> It is not, however, what is currently proposed in this RFC, or what Andre=
a
> is asking in this post (which is a refinement of the RFC, not an alternat=
ive
> to it).
>
> (Yes, I realise catching up with the whole thread might be hard work, I'm
> just worried we're going round in circles, as each new person to join the
> thread brings up all the same points that have been discussed already.)

I've been following the thread so far.
All I'm suggesting is to alter the proposed syntax, keeping the rest
of the RFC the same.

Cheers,
Andrey.