Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80636 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 93092 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2015 11:31:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Jan 2015 11:31:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:40953] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id BB/22-15918-A86F8B45 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 06:31:22 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D47A10D5AD; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:31:20 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:31:19 +0000 (GMT) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Jordi Boggiano cc: internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <54B7D8AE.5090209@seld.be> Message-ID: References: <8DCD1B72-C81D-499E-B455-E4A042CD76E6@ajf.me> <54B7D8AE.5090209@seld.be> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323329-1429103786-1421407880=:4080" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Scalar Type Hints v0.2 From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) --8323329-1429103786-1421407880=:4080 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Jordi Boggiano wrote: > 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 t= o 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 t= he > people reading the spec misunderstood that the declare() line affects fun= ction > calls only and not the API/implementation level. >=20 > As much I think it was a smart idea and workaround, it is perhaps too cle= ver > for its own good if nobody gets it. >=20 > Anyway, as v0.2 appears to be v0.1 + declare(), why not keep those two op= tions > 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. What about a : c) should we also add declare() for to get strict typing at=20 *declaration-site*. It could be the author of a library deciding whether they prefer strict=20 type "hints". But then again, it doesn't really matter as long as the=20 library's method get the correct type I suppose. cheers, Derick --8323329-1429103786-1421407880=:4080--