Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83087 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 72740 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2015 15:47:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Feb 2015 15:47:15 -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] ([212.27.42.2:64185] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 8C/43-56339-104B4E45 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:47:14 -0500 Received: from moorea (unknown [82.240.16.115]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 531204B025B; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:46:51 +0100 (CET) Reply-To: To: "'Leigh'" , "'Sara Golemon'" Cc: "'PHP internals'" References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:47:08 +0100 Message-ID: <032f01d04b92$2722e0d0$7568a270$@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: AQKz6wpj8b81mnwJq1LfxWbU4ZJyQgFU2plEmySkzlA= Content-Language: fr X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150218-0, 18/02/2015), 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?=) > De : Leigh [mailto:leight@gmail.com] > > Can we keep a 0) of "reserve names for future use in-case of RFC > failure" option. Reserving names is only needed as long as we keep keywords sharing the = same naming space as classes. This is a mistake from the past and, as = long as we keep it, each new keyword is a pain. Reserving keywords in = advance can only lead to reserving too few or too much. So, IMO, = deprecating bare class names as hint is first. Then, we can reserve a = limited set of keywords. > How do you propose weak typing works with these? Does it only allow > one of the union of types through (thus making it strict), or does it > try and coerce to one if it can? Which one does it pick? That's exactly the problem we need to solve before going the union type = road. A limited set can be implemented now as new zpp types, but none = that requires questionable conversion (while useful, we are not ready = for 'int|float', for example). Regards Fran=C3=A7ois