Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80576
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.199 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
In-Reply-To: <CALrkBjbmKAiDw+UCJsnugWxChvBio5FUuuEOVcDS5FAqYNrStg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:13:22 +0000
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>,
 Richard Quadling <RQuadling@gmail.com>,
 Leigh <leight@gmail.com>,
 PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <E81E632D-EE69-454A-86EC-31ED79EE1110@ajf.me>
References: <8DCD1B72-C81D-499E-B455-E4A042CD76E6@ajf.me> <CAPwsocGyv7dp8n=_E1QfrXRSbYZXcHZAPk5F=hDLB070i=SCGA@mail.gmail.com> <4E2073DE-0951-498C-97BB-DDAC094F11FA@ajf.me> <9a033dd1f223f854e760924d118ab812@mail.gmail.com> <CAKUjMCU-57cDpG5ZbDGv10dSqx=Ey40D-WbKxKSnC6oSYOfLWw@mail.gmail.com> <2ae0164cb9b9bf1c974d7a3c60af0466@mail.gmail.com> <F3BC55CD-38CD-42B7-AE0B-A6D34E3D3875@ajf.me> <6105ea99002e634373c09685310e26a6@mail.gmail.com> <D39D18B9-A9E5-430E-B00A-E0DE03DAFE8C@ajf.me> <CALrkBjaBgvfdqLqSPDCGfHJD7XEOTOba9yg5ttHN7V1KyFA1-w@mail.gmail.com> <A6B06BAB-F8C8-4BFC-98F5-21AD572D65A2@ajf.me> <CALrkBjbmKAiDw+UCJsnugWxChvBio5FUuuEOVcDS5FAqYNrStg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Willbanks <pencap@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Scalar Type Hints v0.2
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)

Hi Mike,

> On 15 Jan 2015, at 17:07, Mike Willbanks <pencap@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> I may not have described this clearly.  If I make a library with a =
method that states an int, the declarative syntax now makes me have to =
take both due to your earlier comment on that userland would define the =
condition.  This means that if I declared handling inside my library to =
be strict but the caller was in weak, I would need to handle that =
condition.

How, exactly, would you need to handle that condition? You don=E2=80=99t =
need to do anything yourself.

As the RFC itself says:

> In both approaches, the function will always get exactly the argument =
type it asks for. In the case of strict type-checking, this is done by =
rejecting incorrectly-typed values. In the case of weak type-checking, =
this is done by rejecting some values, and converting others. Therefore, =
the following code will always work, regardless of mode:

>     function foobar(int $i) {
>         if (!is_int($i)) {
>             throw new Exception("Not an integer."); // this will never =
happen
>         }
>     }

No matter whether foobar() is called from strictly type-checked or =
weakly type-checked code, the $i argument you get will always, without =
fail, be an integer. Thus, I do not see how you "would need to handle =
that condition=E2=80=9D.

>  Now from that perspective I cannot rely that I am in strict and would =
have to handle the default weak even although I declared in my class =
that i wanted strict mode which only affected the code inside of that =
file.  That's ultimately what I am saying and why I am stating it would =
have to handle both conditions.  In reality, you'd always act as if you =
were in a weak mode supporting that case.

I=E2=80=A6 really don=E2=80=99t understand, I=E2=80=99m sorry. Are you =
complaining that if a caller uses the weak mode, they are not bound by =
strict types? Why do you want to affect the code of the caller?

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/