Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83128
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAESVnVoZYiMWQk1Ydc-9wbkJo7Ru_4mrUtrubW=Rh=QKK9o8TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACwt+Jds5FOveP0pK6G6HXF9_tLUMousRQj2=bUtt-sYXsrGiw@mail.gmail.com> <035001d04ba1$32cdf280$9869d780$@php.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 22:13:37 +0000
Message-ID: <CACwt+JdEv8=Uq0kVDpdNyGYFzGzv507JGAzEuq0fx=zqc=niqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: francois@php.net, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112cbfc9b4e94050f642102
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar Type Hints v0.4
From: patrickallaert@php.net (Patrick ALLAERT)

--089e0112cbfc9b4e94050f642102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Le Wed Feb 18 2015 at 18:35:02, Fran=C3=A7ois Laupretre <francois@php.net> =
a
=C3=A9crit :

> > De : Patrick ALLAERT [mailto:patrickallaert@php.net]
> >     ini_set("coercion_reporting", COERCION_ERROR); // Fail in case of
> > potentially bad coercion
> >
> >     foo(7);
> >     // int(7)
> >     foo("7");
> >     // int(7)
> >     foo("7 dogs");
> >     // Catchable fatal error: Unsafe coercion transforming "7 dogs" to
> "7".
> >
> > The biggest advantage, IMHO, is that you get the exact same result
> whether
> > you do:
> >
> >     foo((int) $value);
> >
> > or:
> >
> >     foo($value);
> >
> > ... whatever the mode you are in.
> >
> > Basically, this is weak type hints + something similar to what I
> > contributed in the past with the "Array to string conversion" notice
> (see:
> > https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/d81ea16e).
> >
> > Care to share the pro's/con's you see with a solution like that?
>
> That's a good idea, IMO. We can add an optional message when a conversion
> is executed in ZPP macros. It can help. The main drawback is that it is
> pure runtime check, not suitable for static analysis and related tools.
>

Does it sounds like a "compromise"? ;)

More seriously, I'm not sure that should be a prerequisite for accepting an
RFC.

Patrick

--089e0112cbfc9b4e94050f642102--