Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82302
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.216 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: <CAFp73XuGq5JhC60buMWUJUMC9NTogZ9_a6j+G+vBb0F3+DshbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 18:19:00 +0000
Cc: Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net>,
 Jordi Boggiano <j.boggiano@seld.be>,
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <A001839F-D3FE-4CC0-9A06-76B9325C369E@ajf.me>
References: <8703B53E-2C4A-4AC6-95C4-D4F19C6D5221@ajf.me> <CAF+90c-s=s5P-w-P48iqm9J+RJn1DvKTnDCsn2sYDxHmmg=7NA@mail.gmail.com> <54D5659D.5000602@php.net> <54D7A6DB.3050209@seld.be> <c35d12eadc1abc5df89b3d8a324e0260@mail.gmail.com> <74136F1E-817F-4A33-8228-B47045DD65C3@ajf.me> <54D7EB44.9010005@gmail.com> <D82F028B-B730-45A9-BFA6-1E63D9E1B332@ajf.me> <b447c382a180aef16bccedcc734c41e0@mail.gmail.com> <54D7F972.4010107@seld.be> <2013B2A4-74E6-4452-8A48-E749DCBEA2EF@zend.com> <6C020C7F-85C0-4C88-8766-48CEDA6290F8@ajf.me> <3399a072b6cb66434e72c5f5b37d5df0@mail.gmail.com> <54D8ECCF.4000202@seld.be> <CAPhkiZyYP2CEiR8FqG8nCm8JGcoH5EfgcNm+PXx2SAst=eQMCA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFp73XuGq5JhC60buMWUJUMC9NTogZ9_a6j+G+vBb0F3+DshbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "guilhermeblanco@gmail.com" <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)

Hi Guilherme,

> On 9 Feb 2015, at 18:12, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com wrote:
>=20
> I read again and again the RFC and I just decided to switch my vote.
> Originally a "YES" voter, I'm now a "NO" voter. I still want strict =
types
> to exist in PHP, and not only at the end-user level, but also at the
> internals level (I can see so many optimizations around...).
> However, I think it's not an INI setting or a per file operation. I
> consider it should be (at the current PHP's pace) a heavily flexible
> support. I tend to agree that if you put "string" in its definition, =
you
> don't want a weak type, but strict type, the same way when you put =
MyClass
> instead of nothing.
>=20
> That's why I don't agree with the declare or "use strict" or <?php =
strict.
> If I say "string $foo", I want a string, not a converted value. By
> accepting this fact, makes easier in the future to make OO primitive =
types
> if we wish, and also makes everything easier for everyone... if you =
have
> foo(string $name), you expect strict type... if you want weak type,
> foo($name). All code will work as is today, no BC breaks.
>=20
> That's my 2 cents... now time to update my vote in RFC.

I can understand that viewpoint, but it=E2=80=99s not terribly kind on =
your users. You=E2=80=99re basically saying that you want to force =
people who=E2=80=99d prefer weak typing to use strict typing if they use =
your API. It=E2=80=99s doing this which this RFC is designed to prevent. =
I don=E2=80=99t think allowing people to force their way on their users =
is a good way to deal with the lack of weak or strict consensus in the =
community, no matter whether it=E2=80=99s nice for API design or not.

Thanks.

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/