Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81854
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.200 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
In-Reply-To: <5B.1F.40930.B23B2D45@pb1.pair.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 01:15:55 +0000
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <E6571308-E8F6-4110-BB26-E645ADCA9AF8@ajf.me>
References: <8DCD1B72-C81D-499E-B455-E4A042CD76E6@ajf.me> <5B.1F.40930.B23B2D45@pb1.pair.com>
To: Pascal Chevrel <pascal.chevrel@free.fr>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Scalar Type Hints v0.2
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)

Hi Pascal,

> On 5 Feb 2015, at 00:02, Pascal Chevrel <pascal.chevrel@free.fr> =
wrote:
>=20
> I am probably going to ask a stupid question, but do we really need =
the =3D1 part in declare?
>=20
> declare(strict_types=3D1) couldn't be declare(strict_types)?
>=20
> Or does it mean that there would be cases when strict typing would be =
deactivated after being activated with declare(strict_types=3D0)?

Oh, I made it like that because that=E2=80=99s the existing syntax of =
declare(), it takes a name and a value. But I suppose it could be =
modified to allow just a name. I don=E2=80=99t think we should modify it =
just for this specific case, really=E2=80=A6 less exceptions to a rule =
and more consistency are generally a good thing.

There is a use for declare(strict_types=3D0), which is to make part of a =
file weak while having the rest strict. It=E2=80=99s not something =
you=E2=80=99d want to do very often, but it may be useful in some rare =
cases. If we have declare(strict_types=3D1), then it makes sense to also =
have declare(strict_types=3D0). It=E2=80=99d be rather odd to not allow =
it.

> To be honest, I don't like declare() because it looks like a function =
call, not a setting for the file like a namespace declaration would be. =
Also, in the case of declare(ticks=3D1), 1 is not a boolean but an =
interval so I find it a bit confusing that strict_types=3D1 would be a =
boolean in that case. Or maybe declare(strict_types=3Dtrue) then?

I originally had it be a boolean, but considering how often this would =
be used, I changed it to 1 for terseness. Using 1 is common for INI =
settings, so I don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99d be that confusing, but I =
see your point.

> Personnally I would prefer a syntax like:
> declare strict;
>=20
> which is just shorter and more readable in my opinion. I know it is =
mostly cosmetic but I don't really understand why declare uses =
parenthesis if it is a language construct and not a function (and yes, I =
think that declare(ticks=3D1) also looks silly ;) );
>=20
> So basically instead of that at the top of my files:
> <?php
> namespace Foo;
> use Bar;
> declare(strict_types=3D1);
>=20
> I would prefer having that:
> <?php
> namespace Foo;
> use Bar;
> declare strict;
>=20
> It's probably a detail in the whole discussion, but for some weird =
psychological reason, it matters to me :),

I can see the appeal, though I=E2=80=99m not really sure about adding =
new syntax just for this.

By the way, I think declare() would be easily distinguished from a =
function for two reasons. Firstly, you can=E2=80=99t assign to =
constants, and secondly, it=E2=80=99ll be syntax-highlights differently.

I can understand your concerns, though. :)

Thanks for voicing them.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/