Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78258
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain devilix.net designates 209.85.217.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ab8b88c6ce21d638f4f7ea85aecbeb18@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66B7B28C-2651-4A71-AC2A-55D4C7BB3DDC@ajf.me>
	<CA+9eiLs9j0XMbtNKSSuqTBhF-BEc1CU__3E4gOhYwuF5zF4_1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<866A39C7-6F11-408D-8BCA-594BA22E8569@ajf.me>
	<CA+9eiLutEFyZsJGu9Qk9C7Jd0P48SBXcdRiVyySbqXbEYm3Y3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<5447682B.2080100@sugarcrm.com>
	<019325A5-4F82-4179-B4D7-29E5649B2616@ajf.me>
	<77c09d71b5ee91245640e414c320518d@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPhkiZzPR6-Z5gjeyYqQT93b9yjGhOYVPDKUK_+gwJAstOxW7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8b88c6ce21d638f4f7ea85aecbeb18@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 02:01:47 +0300
Message-ID: <CAPhkiZxAo4Py5=_2bLEX60t3SAWRKYZzAobfd2=Q9-+6Kg8bJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Safe Casting Functions
From: narf@devilix.net (Andrey Andreev)

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrey Andreev [mailto:narf@devilix.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 1:15 AM
>> To: Zeev Suraski
>> Cc: Andrea Faulds; Stas Malyshev; Dmitry Stogov; PHP Internals
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Safe Casting Functions
>>
>> > While it doesn't explicitly say so, it's clear that one of the goals
>> > of the RFC is make it easier for a 'strict typing' RFC to be accepted
>> > in the future.  This is a clear indication this constitutes a
>> > fundamental
>> change to the core language.
>>
>> I'd argue that it has the exact opposite goal - to be able to say "use
>> to_string(), to_int(), etc; we don't need strict type hinting".
>
> You may be right, I may have misinterpreted the rationale - but I think the
> consequences are still the same.  If this (in the eyes of the author) undoes
> the need for a feature as fundamental as strict typing, how can it be just a
> bunch of simple functions?

Well, that might be the author's rationale, but you (probably)
misinterpreted that exactly because it's not a *technical* limitation
for strict type hints in the future. Personally, I only care about the
technical side of it.

As far as intentions and politics are concerned - if we don't play
politicts for this one, we shouldn't play them for scalar hints as
well. I've said this about every similar proposal so far: It is
useful, so I don't mind having it, but I *also* want strict scalar
type hints with the same syntax as for objects. So that's that - it's
just not the same thing.

Cheers,
Andrey.