Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82625 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 50345 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2015 17:09:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Feb 2015 17:09:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@beccati.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@beccati.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain beccati.com designates 176.9.114.167 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@beccati.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 176.9.114.167 spritz.beccati.com Received: from [176.9.114.167] ([176.9.114.167:44211] helo=mail.beccati.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 7E/E1-40724-1DF2ED45 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:09:37 -0500 Received: (qmail 18669 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2015 17:09:32 -0000 Received: from home.beccati.com (HELO ?192.168.1.202?) (88.149.176.119) by mail.beccati.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2015 17:09:32 -0000 Message-ID: <54DE2FC6.2000105@beccati.com> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:09:26 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Eberlei , PHP Internals References: <8703B53E-2C4A-4AC6-95C4-D4F19C6D5221@ajf.me> <54DAF884.7000508@lerdorf.com> <203e611c8e0b03568a868b8d931aec37@mail.gmail.com> <54DE2D45.6050005@beccati.com> In-Reply-To: <54DE2D45.6050005@beccati.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints From: php@beccati.com (Matteo Beccati) On 13/02/2015 17:58, Matteo Beccati wrote: > On 13/02/2015 17:29, Benjamin Eberlei wrote: >> Wait i almost forgot, it *does* have an effect on me, especially around >> callback handling: >> >> https://gist.github.com/schmittjoh/778e044deacc6f1fe516 >> >> Essentially callbacks are evaluated in the mode they are called in, >> not in >> the one they are defined. > > This is indeed interesting. > > And the failure could even be not so obvious like a mismatch between the > callback signature and what the caller expects. Actually I was mistaken, as in fact the closure body would run in weak-mode. A bit confusing indeed, though ;) Cheers -- Matteo Beccati Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/