Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75531
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.220.178 as permitted sender)
References: <08503591-EFC8-48E6-984E-FFC292C5EA5F@ajf.me> <16D48604-0C0A-4613-91A4-21392E3A2636@ajf.me>
 <CAGAGxbZG+c46P4E2pmEHNnEv=4DyTrHOuXbZu3zAOSU3M6-A-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <05CE2216-C5D9-4937-9F2E-AA1407284D9F@ajf.me> <53C460DF.5040304@sugarcrm.com>
In-Reply-To: <53C460DF.5040304@sugarcrm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQJuUFVOlGiX172RfpkkW7aXwqSXwwLGIEDMAn0sGnoDLh5SUQGHGGlvmhPYEyA=
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:18:01 +0300
Message-ID: <f0d6fe9e1386dbfe706f12206989d81a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, 
	Chris Wright <daverandom@php.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Scalar Type Hinting With Casts (re-opening)
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stas Malyshev [mailto:smalyshev@sugarcrm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 2:00 AM
> To: Andrea Faulds; Chris Wright
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Scalar Type Hinting With Casts (re-opening)
>
> Hi!
>
> > I suggested on IRC that empty strings, TRUE, FALSE, NULL, and values
> > that validate for the int type hint could be accepted. Is that a good
> > idea? Though it feels a bit loose, I think it covers all the important
> > common use cases.
>
> Then you need to make all internal functions that accept bool work this
> way
> too. But I'm not sure why you need this. You accept that if("foo") works.
> Then
> why "function foo(bool $x) { if($x) { ... " should work differently? Yes,
> it is an
> edge case and bad code style. So are many other legal constructs. In my
> opinion, it is better to permit edge cases and be consistent than try to
> carve
> out perfect set of "what can be boolean" and get lost in the maze of
> exceptions and conditions. E.g. if we say we treat 1 and "1" mostly the
> same,
> then we should say "unless we convert them to bool in a context of a
> function
> call where they are not". I think it should be kept simpler - if we accept
> "foo"
> in boolean context, then we should just accept it.

Exactly.

Zeev