Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80552
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.207 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
In-Reply-To: <54B7D8AE.5090209@seld.be>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:29:39 +0000
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <9CC72DB5-A794-4D65-A781-92ED71DC59B2@ajf.me>
References: <8DCD1B72-C81D-499E-B455-E4A042CD76E6@ajf.me> <54B7D8AE.5090209@seld.be>
To: Jordi Boggiano <j.boggiano@seld.be>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Scalar Type Hints v0.2
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)

Hi Jordi,

> On 15 Jan 2015, at 15:11, Jordi Boggiano <j.boggiano@seld.be> wrote:
>=20
> On 14/01/2015 00:16, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> 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
> Reading the thread at this point shows so much confusion, it seems =
half the people reading the spec misunderstood that the declare() line =
affects function calls only and not the API/implementation level.
>=20
> As much I think it was a smart idea and workaround, it is perhaps too =
clever for its own good if nobody gets it.
>=20
> Anyway, as v0.2 appears to be v0.1 + declare(), why not keep those two =
options separated in the vote?
>=20
> a) should be add weak typing
> b) should we also add declare() for to get strict typing at call-site.
>=20
> If *a* passes it would be a great stepping stone towards adding *b* =
later perhaps, or tweaking internal coercion rules to improve the =
behavior of the weak types, having scalars in return hints (since return =
hints seem likely to pass), etc.
>=20
> If *b* passes as well great we have a complete picture and every team =
can have declare() Y/N in their own coding guidelines based on =
preference.

I may consider another RFC that just does weak typing, or reviving v0.1 =
if this RFC doesn=E2=80=99t pass. But I=E2=80=99m not really sure about =
it. I=E2=80=99m not sure it=E2=80=99s fair on all the people who would =
prefer a strict approach.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/