Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83428
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.213.178 as permitted sender)
References: <7ef509ef10bb345c792f9d259c7a3fbb@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nHq_-9jyRcwJmiAxthmEo3u3MDXcyOC09LV2DETABzCoA@mail.gmail.com>
	<c8b54c9828154c7e07810461db03bd4d@mail.gmail.com> <CALwr1GmzNOFUgZGxC+vRri6btdh=QQaUnE+d0Wr8XLbQOEuMmQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALwr1GmzNOFUgZGxC+vRri6btdh=QQaUnE+d0Wr8XLbQOEuMmQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQKcPg+jpyYspJS11b5G1A7RBHpKTgFW66vOAVBxp4MBsMGai5tA8mNw
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 23:02:37 +0200
Message-ID: <e7f52beda58e506a2d4a3a2aca583e6a@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draic_Brady?= <padraic.brady@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Coercive Scalar Type Hints RFC
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: P=C3=A1draic Brady [mailto:padraic.brady@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:56 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Anthony Ferrara; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Coercive Scalar Type Hints RFC
>
>
> The sentence stresses garbage in too much to read as accurate. To clarify=
,
> there is a) garbage in due to weak coercion and b) a function being calle=
d
> with a string when the typehint says int. Both are separate concerns
> around
> error detection. Stricter coercion can enable only one of these two, for
> example. That's better than neither, of course! The coercion rules were
> stricter than I expected based on previous emails. Stressing one too much
> might suggest to a reader that the second concern does not exist.

As I told Anthony, based on what I saw on the list, the former appeared to
be a much more widely-held concern than the latter.

> Other pedantic comment: "numerous" is probably too strong a word there.
> The advantages may vary by person, but usually fit within basic
> five-finger
> math. It would be more important to enumerate them rather than selecting
> one as primary.

Thanks, changed to 'several'.  Double thanks, as I always thought 'Numerous=
'
was more or less equivalent to 'Several', and you made me look it up :)


> On the RFC rules themselves, a few comments:
>
> 1. Happy to see leading/trailing spaces excluded.

Happy to see you happy!

> 2. Rules don't make mention of leading zeroes, e.g. 0003 3. "1E07" might
> be
> construed as overly generous assuming we are excluding stringy integers
> like
> hex, oct and binary 4. I'm assuming the stringy ints are rejected?

It's up for discussion.  I personally don't have very strong feelings on ho=
w
we deal with these cases, as the main thing I care about is for the common
cases to work.  That said, if it was entirely up to me, I'd accept "0003"
but not  "1E07" - as the latter is considered floating point:
$x =3D "1e7";
print gettype($x+0);  // would print double

But if rejecting leading zeros is what's needed to get a lot more people to
support it, I can live with that.

> 5. Is ".32" coerced to float or only "0.32"? Merely for clarification.

With the same disclaimer as the one for the previous answer, I'd go with
accepting ".32" in the same way is_numeric() accepts it.

> 7. In string to float, only capital E or also small e?

I think both, same is_numeric() rationale - same disclaimer.

> 8. I'll never stop call them "stringy" ints.

I can live with that :)

Thanks for the feedback!

Zeev