Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82107
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54D6CC39.50708@lerdorf.com>
References: <8703B53E-2C4A-4AC6-95C4-D4F19C6D5221@ajf.me>
	<CAB6YZuy-FFERAqcOjtyiizzwUZb6qrnMw8FCf8zur1wsL37Opg@mail.gmail.com>
	<9E1C2427-0295-4F3E-BD29-04DA84321067@ajf.me>
	<A3ACFAAF-37CB-47ED-9605-BA7D0609E4DA@ajf.me>
	<CAB6YZuzW9zwV7F44_8BxcrcteFMW2c3GJq1bkUuZTC9-tcmtNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54D6CC39.50708@lerdorf.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 09:48:12 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU5Q2DuvoFZ4TC3drzxETwBcYkrgtg1rh40jqxCRy=LBQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Pavel_Kou=C5=99il?= <pajousek@gmail.com>, 
	Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:
> On 02/07/2015 05:03 PM, Pavel Kou=C5=99il wrote:
>> I'm wishing more and more that the RFC doesn't pass (even though I'd
>> LOVE to have typehints in PHP as a userland developer) and someone
>> else will make a better version of typehints RFC for  PHP 7, because
>> this one feels really like you took an ok-ish RFC (one that would be
>> good for PHP) and slapped a strict typing on it without enough
>> research about strong typing in other languages. And as I said myself
>> multiple times in the past, the declare syntax IS just ugly (and
>> changing how code works by writing one line is an ugly principle as
>> well, IMHO). :(
>
> I am not sure I would go that far. Andrea did plenty of research and has
> tons of experience in other languages, I just think this approach is
> misguided. I also wonder just how many people of those who voted even
> bothered to download and try the patch. I tried it a while back on some
> existing code and it was a nightmare. Does everyone realize that these
> simple things break?
>
>  tan(1);
>  echo strstr("test", "est", 1);
>
> Having absolutely no coercion for int to float and 0/1 to false/true,
> especially for internal functions, is just too pedantic to me. I also
> find this a bit hypocritical:
>
> declare(strict_types=3Dtrue);
>
> outputs:
>
> Fatal error: strict_types declaration must have 0 or 1 as its value
>
> That is obviously nit-picking, but if we are going to get this pedantic..=
.
>
> And, you also have to realize that it isn't actually per file. For
> example, this:
>
> <?php
> function myErrorHandler($errno, $errstr, $errfile, $errline) {
>   if ($errno=3D=3D=3DE_RECOVERABLE_ERROR) {
>     echo "\ncatchable fatal error\n";
>     return true;
>   }
>   return false;
> }
> set_error_handler('myErrorHandler');
>
> echo tan(1);
> declare(strict_types=3D1);
> echo tan(1);
> declare(strict_types=3D0);
> echo tan(1);
>
> This will output:
>
> 1.5574077246549
> catchable fatal error
> 1.5574077246549
>
> The RFC refers to it as a per-file directive, which just means it
> doesn't apply to files you include after setting it. It doesn't mean
> that the entire file is affected. You can flip in and out of strict mode
> at will. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can certainly get
> confusing.
>
> For example. Since everyone has already voted, you can all tell me what
> this does, right?
>
> 1)
> <?php
> function do_something() {
>   declare(strict_types=3D1);
> }
> echo tan(1);
> do_something();
> echo tan(1);
>
> How about this:
>
> 2)
> <?php
> echo tan(1);
> do_something();
> echo tan(1);
> function do_something() {
>   declare(strict_types=3D1);
> }
>
> or this?
>
> 3)
> <?php
> function do_something() {
>   declare(strict_types=3D1);
> }
> echo tan(1);
> echo tan(1);
>
> Answers:
>
> 1) fatal error on the first tan(1)
> 2) no errors
> 3) same as 1)
>
> Basically declare() does not respect function scope, but it doesn't let
> you know that. There is a reason we haven't used declare() for anything
> real.

I do not see that as a blocker.

Anyway, if everyone has voted then you do not have to worry as the RFC
is rejected as of now. Badly but so it goes.



--=20
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org