Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81789 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 68168 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2015 09:13:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 4 Feb 2015 09:13:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@tekwire.net; sender-id=softfail Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@tekwire.net; spf=softfail; sender-id=softfail Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain tekwire.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@tekwire.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:62397] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B7/C2-55046-AB2E1D45 for ; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 04:13:32 -0500 Received: from moorea (unknown [82.240.16.115]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2BF24B0286; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:10:12 +0100 (CET) Reply-To: To: "'Dmitry Stogov'" Cc: "'Yasuo Ohgaki'" , "'Joe Watkins'" , "'PHP Internals'" , "'Andrea Faulds'" , "'Nikita Popov'" References: <00c101d04049$ca411ec0$5ec35c40$@tekwire.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:13:23 +0100 Message-ID: <00f601d0405a$d3fef480$7bfcdd80$@tekwire.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQI+MKsMv6zrm7KCv5jpZIs/BqhffwHJ9dvJAVdrBXgBsC3UswHm0N93m86QPwA= Content-Language: fr X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150203-1, 03/02/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] What do we need strict scalar type hints for? From: francois@tekwire.net (=?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=) De : Dmitry Stogov [mailto:dmitry@zend.com]=20 > The idea of that RFC was an ability to have zero-cost assert(). > >DbC is a much more bigger feature, it is interesting, but requires = significant work. I agree. My suggestion was just to consider assertions as part of this = future work (by using 'dbc' instead of 'assert' in naming, which will be = cleaner when we implement the whole concept in the future). Fran=C3=A7ois