Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82264
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain tekwire.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <francois@tekwire.net>
To: "'Rowan Collins'" <rowan.collins@gmail.com>,
	<internals@lists.php.net>,
	"Andrea Faulds" <ajf@ajf.me>
References: <8703B53E-2C4A-4AC6-95C4-D4F19C6D5221@ajf.me> <CE494877-8C5A-4315-BBF6-089FBD83F148@ajf.me> <54D7EF9D.7040700@gmail.com> <5E3D1500-E55D-4FEB-978B-FCA4AE4A1F13@ajf.me> <54D80302.8070206@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54D80302.8070206@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:58:13 +0100
Message-ID: <049201d04457$4d4ba130$e7e2e390$@tekwire.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQJMIZG9mXkdirFXmuP9r5ZK3xIuzQGdv7Z4Aj7tObACY6cteALjwJSNm6c/qUA=
Content-Language: fr
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Syntactical change to Scalar Type Hints RFC
From: francois@tekwire.net (=?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=)

> De : Rowan Collins [mailto:rowan.collins@gmail.com]
>
> >> Would more "strict" features be added to this mode later?
> > No.
> >
> >> Or would other keywords be added so that you could, ahem, "declare"
> several directives at the top of your block?
> > No.
>=20
> I think this is all rather optimistic - if you use a specific term =
like
> "strict_types", people will want to use this syntax for other =
keywords;
> if you use something as general as "strict", they will want to add
> additional semantics to the existing keyword.

+1. We cannot allow a keyword (yes, it IS a reserved keyword) in this =
location and say "Oh, that's just an exception for strict type checking, =
but no one has the right to do the same, except Andrea if she needs it =
again in the future.".

If we extend the syntax, we must establish rules for keywords on the =
same line as '<?php'. IMO, it would apply to the code block, not to the =
whole file, or you need to add constraints that go too far (disable '?>' =
and the like). Unfortunately, the BC break would probably make such an =
RFC still more problematic than strict typing.

Another concern is that 'strict', while elegant, is ambiguous. I guess =
most people would think it enables E_STRICT, which I would intuitively =
believe.

Cheers

Fran=C3=A7ois