Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83177
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.223.170 as permitted sender)
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>
	<d8031ce52e9965c789887e8f7b687a4e@mail.gmail.com>	<CAESVnVpA+M6iv_zbDmKTEF8Q1zKjwnbi1ucc=UyuUyRr+X+U3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<022801d04ab1$4a0c47d0$de24d770$@php.net>	<1913e09d7f52541901d8574d2080a63f@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nFD=BQ5dBYiKzhbOKTomKmWvruTnb=R_n9mYB-Lz1P9pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<7a5d96b34b98ec1f3ee17be7fa6a1e81@mail.gmail.com>	<CAPhkiZxpYbaPN1370_HFTVnBA=Jg-rU8DrB2P+2dmRcJfGWPtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2CBDEB67-3DE3-437D-9AF3-0E6A92027244@zend.com> <CAPhkiZwcD3h42=9eak4uP9n2GBE=v0LVP6Ncq9Oz7L91dJ5y5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4cc0c81c7199a452534bb8edcdb19914@mail.gmail.com> <54E589F6.9030002@garfieldtech.com>
 <d62afd01c97a2d00466ac88579fa861c@mail.gmail.com> <54E5B9DD.6080607@lsces.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <54E5B9DD.6080607@lsces.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQGD0sLDaA+/0NIeBlQhQC5OtPA/xwHih9+6AanvcsEBj7eMCwEU0CpMAs0H7+gBDwGZjwJNu28fAX8sxVQAox2RWwKtsa6+Ap7Ai84CNkZj6gJ0jMndAd8n3MgBp3GfaAJFqx85nJ7a0UA=
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:52:10 +0200
Message-ID: <c2921bcfb5313c4e3fa3df24fa8381eb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Reviving scalar type hints
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lester Caine [mailto:lester@lsces.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 12:24 PM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Reviving scalar type hints
>
> On 19/02/15 09:13, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > Obviously, I think 'weak' campers have a lot to gain too - by making
> > sensible conversions work fine as expected, without having to resort
> > to explicit casts.
> > And everyone stands to gain from having just one mode, instead of two.
> > The coercive typing approach would require each camp to give up a bit
> > of their 'ideology', but it also gives both schools of thought *most*
> > of what they want, including the key tenets for each camp (rejecting
> > non-sensible conversions - always, allowing sensible ones - always).
> > I believe that's what makes it a good compromise, a better one than
> > the currently proposed RFC.
>
> Now that all made sense!
>
> My only grey area is 'allowing sensible ones' where the size is an
> integral part
> of what is 'sensible' ... the one where conventional strict typing uses a
> type
> of the right size?

I think the guiding principal for these conversions should be no data loss.
This may mean we have different limits on different architectures, depending
on whether they're 32-bit or 64-bit.

Zeev