Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83492 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 61477 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2015 22:05:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Feb 2015 22:05:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; 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] ([212.27.42.2:26091] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 61/67-18531-5C25AE45 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 17:05:57 -0500 Received: from moorea (unknown [82.240.16.115]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 318784B0116; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 23:05:43 +0100 (CET) Reply-To: To: "'Robert Stoll'" , "'Zeev Suraski'" , "'PHP internals'" References: <7ef509ef10bb345c792f9d259c7a3fbb@mail.gmail.com> <002101d04ea0$d92ea0f0$8b8be2d0$@tutteli.ch> In-Reply-To: <002101d04ea0$d92ea0f0$8b8be2d0$@tutteli.ch> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 23:05:51 +0100 Message-ID: <06b901d04eeb$b96f3ae0$2c4db0a0$@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: AQKcPg+jpyYspJS11b5G1A7RBHpKTgIhFZZKm1ROKLA= Content-Language: fr X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150222-1, 22/02/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Coercive Scalar Type Hints RFC From: francois@php.net (=?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=) Hi Robert, > So what does that mean for scalar types? > IMO it means that way more important than adding scalar type hints to = PHP > 7.0 is to agree on a new set of conversion rules for the long run. PHP = should > strive to have one consistent set of conversion rules which apply in = all places > where implicit or explicit conversion are used. That's exactly what I mean. I think people should keep in mind, when = talking about enabling/disabling a given conversion, that the implicit = scope is every explicit or implicit conversion implemented in PHP. In an ideal world, we would proceed in reverse order. We wouldn't start = considering modifying the ZPP ruleset before having aligned every = implicit/explicit conversions existing in PHP on a single ruleset. = Unfortunately, if we want to keep a chance with STH in 7.0, we cannot do = that. So, we will probably evaluate potential BC breaks on ZPP ruleset = modifications only, meaning we'll make decision without a good = evaluation of the BC breaks introduced by aligning other PHP conversions = on the newly-proposed ruleset. So, we'll need to extrapolate from = ZPP-only results. Regards Fran=C3=A7ois