Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82513
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.223.181 as permitted sender)
References: <8703B53E-2C4A-4AC6-95C4-D4F19C6D5221@ajf.me>	<CABBJUpf=wKvGY9+xORRv6WVhCb5+LfRZXGYNasHFS=fz_mwaZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpeceN1uDK870eV2=znC9f3eaxqYCmaEk0ErH2cbFxTNEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpdYnaR2nztPwFUdDAiAneRrAWzGo-36-DA9hqiBjEHXNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<54DAF884.7000508@lerdorf.com>	<203e611c8e0b03568a868b8d931aec37@mail.gmail.com>
	<F79D6CDF-20DD-4E24-B2F4-F12637368242@ajf.me>	<CAFp73XsF37WLzfax-NOgMLf7AU2UodpEz5=ZBMtnuYG+BeMP_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<aabb5e23729781918c9c8b315af0488b@mail.gmail.com> <CAOjCV8yOJQgJFiCXSCbfAdjcrkJMGFbz3=LrXnQ5rwB5gX+ERw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOjCV8yOJQgJFiCXSCbfAdjcrkJMGFbz3=LrXnQ5rwB5gX+ERw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQJMIZG9mXkdirFXmuP9r5ZK3xIuzQJbJJA/AzCIQggCYWllLQKBurkXAYsw6s4B6qYCMgHjX/2GAR2J+qQBjkVFwZthMFAg
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:05:04 +0200
Message-ID: <44021d67d6709692a479516e82a77921@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sebastian B.-Hagensen" <sbj.ml.read@gmail.com>
Cc: guilhermeblanco@gmail.com, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>, 
	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: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastian B.-Hagensen [mailto:sbj.ml.read@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:11 AM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: guilhermeblanco@gmail.com; Rasmus Lerdorf; PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
>
> Hi,
>
> 2015-02-12 0:08 GMT+01:00 Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>:
> >  It gives the exact same
> > value from an API author=E2=80=99s point of view.
>
> But not from an api-consumers point of view.

I didn't claim otherwise.  I am claiming that piece is significantly less
important, and that its negative implications outweigh its positive ones.

> Without either introducing a
> new set of casting/conversion rules or changing existing behavior
> (**exclusively**) 'weak' typehints may be perceived as seriously crippled=
.
> Maybe up to a point where the addition of them wouldn't be justified.

I argued we should tweak the conversion rules.

> > But unlike the current RFC, v0.1 doesn=E2=80=99t introduce an IMHO alie=
n
> > concept into a language that considered dynamic typing to be a core
> > principle since its birth.
>
> It's not. PHP was always open to enforce strict typing in user created
> functions.

Being able to do something in custom code - and having language-level synta=
x
for it are a world a part in terms of condoned language principles.  That's
why proponents of this RFC are so much in its favor - and opponents are so
much against.  This new syntax would mean explosive growth and official
encouragement for developers to place strict type checking throughout their
code.

Zeev