Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80055
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.216 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
In-Reply-To: <54A56EB3.2000308@fischer.name>
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 16:35:01 +0000
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <B18AD4A8-8014-4E85-9067-9516FD635747@ajf.me>
References: <41D5BB0B-73AF-488E-968D-90B2878E3178@ajf.me> <54A5051F.1090400@php.net> <54A52AE6.70704@fischer.name> <CDBE6BAD-1345-432B-AE0A-3160697BBF05@ajf.me> <54A56EB3.2000308@fischer.name>
To: Markus Fischer <markus@fischer.name>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Scalar Type Hints
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)

Hi Markus,

> On 1 Jan 2015, at 15:58, Markus Fischer <markus@fischer.name> wrote:
>=20
> On 01.01.15 16:19, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> I think it=E2=80=99d be weird to have different syntaxes for scalars =
and non-scalars. We already use the syntax the RFC proposes in the PHP =
manual, and I don=E2=80=99t think anyone=E2=80=99s confused by it.=20
>=20
> I didn't meant to stay there's something wrong with the syntax, sorry =
if
> my text was confusing! I was rather trying to point out that it does =
not
> hint at anything but proactively tries to convert types; see below for =
more:

Ah, I see. Well, at least I was able to cover that syntax suggestion =
before someone else brings it up. I see your point.

> And as you also pointed out: those conversion rules are different from
> what a plain "(int)$whatever" would do.

The conversion rules are the same, it=E2=80=99s just that scalar hints =
reject certain values. The values they accept are converted the same. I =
don=E2=80=99t think this is unreasonable: implicit and explicit casts =
shouldn=E2=80=99t behave identically. Implicit casts need to be much =
stricter.

> Now, going on step back here (talking about me), I'm speaking up =
because
>> my< needs are developer are different (mostly speaking about backend
> code, interfaces, libraries, frameworks) but OTOH I'm not a big known
> open source framework developer either ;)
>=20
> I would honestly be interested what the big framework/library players
> actually want/need; do they prefer this implicit scalar type =
conversion
> system or rather have a rigid system like the current object types but
> for scalars too? I think decision on this RFC should include also
> "their" saying too.
>=20
> It's complex because we can't force anyone to participate but I think
> above all these are the most important audience here because they know
> what they want and they know what their users want. I say this because
> usage of object types in PHP is almost non-existent (or, there are =
just
> too few cases) compared to the architecture of some of the
> framework/library systems out there.

That=E2=80=99s a fair point. I=E2=80=99m not sure how they feel about =
it.

Their views aren=E2=80=99t necessarily the most important, though. =
Frameworks can do whatever they like, but what ultimately matters is =
what=E2=80=99s best for the end users, who don=E2=80=99t deal with the =
framework internals.

Thanks.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/