Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83068 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 30497 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2015 14:14:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Feb 2015 14:14:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:64869] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 58/D3-18888-13E94E45 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:14:10 -0500 Received: from moorea (unknown [82.240.16.115]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D2564B018C; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:13:46 +0100 (CET) Reply-To: To: "'Nikita Popov'" , "'Sara Golemon'" Cc: "'PHP internals'" References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:14:03 +0100 Message-ID: <031101d04b85$263c6450$72b52cf0$@php.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKz6wpj8b81mnwJq1LfxWbU4ZJyQgGjcksImyIVXbA= Content-Language: fr X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150217-2, 17/02/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Scalar Type Hints v0.4 From: francois@php.net (=?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=) Hi Nikita, > > I don't like the way this is heading with regards to internal = functions. > Apart from better inter-compatibility, the primary appeal of Andrea's > proposal was that we have the option to make not only userland = function > calls strict, but internal ones as well. With these modifications this = is > lost for all practical purposes. (*) Please refer to my other posts proposing single mode with the addition = of four 'strict' scalar types at ZPP level (would apply to internal = *and*userland). These will be chosen by internal function implementors = when they decide it, not by the caller. I hope it can solve your = question. The idea is that internal function are treated as weak using the current = ZPP types. Then, they can be made strict, one by one, and argument by = argument. No need to duplicate type hinting to arg_info IMO. Rasmus' (int -> float) coercion question does not exist if we find a = single mode consensus. And, I am decided to take the time it needs to = find one, as I think it can lead to a much more consistent design. Can you just tell me if what I exposed above solves your concerns ? = Thanks. Regards Fran=C3=A7ois