Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80445
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain tutteli.ch designates 80.74.154.78 as permitted sender)
To: "'Andrea Faulds'" <ajf@ajf.me>,
	"'PHP Internals List'" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <8DCD1B72-C81D-499E-B455-E4A042CD76E6@ajf.me>
In-Reply-To: <8DCD1B72-C81D-499E-B455-E4A042CD76E6@ajf.me>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:22:42 +0100
Message-ID: <000301d02fd3$456ab390$d0401ab0$@tutteli.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQGo6gmoLPH7aNIVeHjTN7HPWATOM50NyG5w
Content-Language: de-ch
Subject: AW: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Scalar Type Hints v0.2
From: php@tutteli.ch ("Robert Stoll")

Hi Andrea

> -----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Andrea Faulds [mailto:ajf@ajf.me]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2015 01:17
> An: PHP Internals List
> Betreff: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Scalar Type Hints v0.2
>=20
> Good evening,
>=20
> I=E2=80=99ve made some quite significant changes to my Scalar Type =
Hints RFC, and bumped its version to 0.2.
>=20
> Here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/scalar_type_hints
>=20
> This is a new thread because I=E2=80=99ve made a significant revision =
to the RFC, so it=E2=80=99d be sensible to separate discussion of the
> updated RFC from the v0.1 RFC.
>=20
> Please tell me your thoughts.
>=20
> Thanks!
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/
>=20
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, =
visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

I had a few thoughts on the new proposed =
declare(strict_typehints=3DTRUE); construct and I must say I do not =
really like that we would have different behaviour just based on a =
directive. This is quite ugly from a readability point of view since I =
as user cannot easily see whether somewhere (above) in the code the =
directive was set (I have changed my mind a little bit below - left it =
here for traceability purposes). Which brings me to the question what =
happens with the following code:

function foo(int $a){}  //is weak right?
declare(strict_typehinting=3DTRUE);


I guess it is weak since you wrote: "If this boolean value is TRUE, =
strict type-checking mode is used for function calls in the remainder of =
the file"
Maybe it is a good idea to add such an example to the examples as well.

Now, having rethought my own email, I think we should enforce some code =
style to avoid a huge mess. Why not declare that the directive needs to =
be the very first statement inside a namespace scope (unless the =
directive block syntax is used). This way it would be easily verifiable =
for the user if strict mode is in place or not. But then again, we could =
also argue that is up to code conventions/code guidelines and they =
should specify whether mixing both modes is ok and where the directive =
has to be placed. So re-rethinking what I just wrote I would say it is =
fine as it is now but we should at least consider if we want to enforce =
some code practice to avoid a mess.

Now another point: "Whether or not the function being called was =
declared in a file that uses strict or weak type checking is entirely =
irrelevant. The type checking mode depends on the file where the =
function is called."
Seems quite strange to me but fair enough, why not -- actually makes =
perfectly sense for this RFC -> leaving it to the user to decide what =
he/she likes :-)=20