Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83032
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.174 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <54E44AD6.3040500@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:18:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
CC: francois@php.net, Philip Sturgeon <pjsturgeon@gmail.com>, 
 Arvids Godjuks <arvids.godjuks@gmail.com>,
 Jefferson Gonzalez <jgmdev@gmail.com>, 
 Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <011801d04a07$83ab1c00$8b015400$@php.net>	<CABDNdAFQsbo-A-gijPCwYDOf3ts-yKpP0tAL--WUaLU26GB-AQ@mail.gmail.com>	<016f01d04a3a$e9183220$bb489660$@php.net>	<CAESVnVoM7YbmXA8hTG1O66j+6YX3Xx2Q3uj_F=TPjHA4ws=8JA@mail.gmail.com>	<54E290E5.3020508@lerdorf.com> <CAESVnVpXmmfDh6iqT=n27iHQ21_QxPWkez_=bEc1Dpn+MNrjMg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVpXmmfDh6iqT=n27iHQ21_QxPWkez_=bEc1Dpn+MNrjMg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Reviving scalar type hints
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> So let's talk compromise.
> Would leaving internal functions out of the picture at this stage
> change you mind?  This is effectively what Hack does, internal
> functions are explicitly marked as "coercible".

For me, the option that makes users remember which functions are
internal and which are not, because they work radically different (and I
don't mean in some small detail, I mean up to a complete failure if I
get it wrong) is not something I'd really like.

> Would a tri-state option make sense? ('weak-all',
> 'strict-user/weak-internal', 'strict-all')
> How do we get from here to something you would like?

Two semantics in the same language are bad enough. Three, IMHO, is just
a no go, dealing with code having three different semantics would be
completely impossible.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com