Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83583
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACouGvnY3rDDcpfZAv7pkv0ZgLTwUA_4g6m3_R3yDRScncbFrA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACouGvnY3rDDcpfZAv7pkv0ZgLTwUA_4g6m3_R3yDRScncbFrA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:09:48 -0300
Message-ID: <CAEf4F9Sn5OUfz5yK7nRfsT1BPP36PZdeqtqyTq0gTwgBCEgi-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Matthew Weier O'Phinney" <matthew@zend.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01160576abd6da050fc3a111
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] User perspective on STH
From: ceceldada@gmail.com (Marcel Araujo)

--089e01160576abd6da050fc3a111
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is first answer that makes sense for community needs.
Em 23/02/2015 13:01, "Matthew Weier O'Phinney" <matthew@zend.com> escreveu:

> I'm writing this as an author and maintainer of a framework and many
> libraries.
> Caveat, for those who aren't already aware: I work for Zend, and report t=
o
> Zeev.
> If you feel that will make my points impartial, please feel free to stop
> reading, but I do think my points on STH bear some consideration.
>
> I've been following the STH proposals off and on. I voted for Andrea's
> proposal,
> and, behind the scenes, defended it to Zeev. On a lot of consideration,
> and as
> primarily a _consumer_ and _user_ of the language, I'm no longer convince=
d
> that
> a dual-mode proposal makes sense. I worry that it will lead to:
>
> - A split within the PHP community, consisting of those that do not use
>   typehints, those who do use typehints, and those who use strict.
> - Poor programming practices and performance degradation by those who ado=
pt
>   strict, due to poor usage of type casting.
>
> Let me explain.
>
> The big problem currently is that the engine behavior around casting can
> lead to
> data loss quickly. As has been demonstrated elsewhere:
>
>     $value =3D (int) '100 dogs'; // 100  - non-numeric trailing values ar=
e
> trimmed
>     $value =3D (int) 'dog100';   // 0    - non-numeric values leading
> values -> 0 ...
>     $value =3D (int) '-100';     // -100 - ... unless indicating sign.
>     $value =3D (int) ' 100';     // 100  - space is trimmed; data loss!
>     $value =3D (int) ' 100 ';    // 100  - space is trimmed; data loss!
>     $value =3D (int) '100.0';    // 100  - probably correct, but loss of
> precision
>     $value =3D (int) '100.7';    // 100  - precision and data loss!
>     $value =3D (int) 100.7;      // 100  - precision and data loss!
>     $value =3D (int) 0x1A;       // 26   - hex
>     $value =3D (int) '0x1A';     // 0    - shouldn't this be 26? why is
> this different?
>     $value =3D (int) true;       // 1    - should this be cast?
>     $value =3D (int) false;      // 0    - should this be cast?
>     $value =3D (int) null;       // 0    - should this be cast?
>
> Today, without scalar type hints, we end up writing code that has to firs=
t
> validate that we have something we can use, and then cast it. This can
> often be
> done with ext/filter, but it's horribly verbose:
>
>     $value =3D filter_var(
>         $value,
>         FILTER_VALIDATE_INT,
>         FILTER_FLAG_ALLOW_OCTAL | FILTER_FLAG_ALLOW_HEX
>     );
>     if (false =3D=3D=3D $value) {
>         // throw an exception?
>     }
>
> Many people skip the validation step entirely for the more succinct:
>
>     $value =3D (int) $value;
>
> And this is where problems occur, because this is when data loss occurs.
>
> What I've observed in my 15+ years of using PHP is that people _don't_
> validate;
> they either blindly accept data and assume it's of the correct type, or
> they
> blindly cast it without validation because writing that validation code i=
s
> boring, verbose, and repetitive (I'm guilty of this myself!). Yes, you ca=
n
> offload that to libraries, but why introduce a new dependency in somethin=
g
> as
> simple as a value object?
>
> The promise of STH is that the values will be properly coerced, so that i=
f
> I
> write a function that expects an integer, but pass it something like '100=
'
> or
> '0x1A', it will be cast for me =E2=80=94 but something that is not an int=
eger and
> cannot
> be safely cast without data loss will be rejected, and an error can bubbl=
e
> up my
> stack or into my logs.
>
> Both the Dual-Mode and the new Coercive typehints RFCs provide this.
>
> The Dual-Mode, however, can potentially take us back to the same code we
> have
> today when strict mode is enabled.
>
> Now, you may argue that you won't need to cast the value in the first
> place,
> because STH! But what if the value you received is from a database? or
> from a
> web request you've made? Chances are, the data is in a string, but the
> _value_
> may be of another type. With weak/coercive mode, you just pass the data
> as-is,
> but with strict enabled, your choices are to either cast blindly, or to d=
o
> the
> same validation/casting as before:
>
>     $value =3D filter_var(
>         $value,
>         FILTER_VALIDATE_INT,
>         FILTER_FLAG_ALLOW_OCTAL | FILTER_FLAG_ALLOW_HEX
>     );
>     if (false =3D=3D=3D $value) {
>         // throw an exception?
>     }
>
> Interestingly, this adds overhead to your application (more function
> calls), and
> makes it harder to read and to maintain. Ironically, I foresee "strict" a=
s
> being
> a new "badge of honor" for many in the language ("my code works under
> strict
> mode!"), despite these factors.
>
> If I don't enable strict mode on my code, and somebody else turns on
> strict when
> calling my code, there's the possibility of new errors if I do not perfor=
m
> validation or casting on such values. This means that the de facto
> standard will
> likely be to code to strict (I can already envision the flood of PRs
> against OSS
> projects for these issues).
>
> You can say, "But, Static Analysis!" all you want, but that doesn't lead
> to me
> writing less code to accomplish the same thing; it just gives me a tool t=
o
> check
> the correctness of my code. (Yes, this _is_ important. But we also have a
> ton of
> tooling around those concerns already, even if they aren't proper static
> analyzers.)
>
> From a developer experience factor, I find myself scratching my head: wha=
t
> are
> we gaining with STH if we have a strict mode? I'm still writing exactly
> the same
> code I am today to validate and/or cast my scalars before passing them to
> functions and methods if I want to be strict.
>
> The new coercive RFC offers much more promise to me as a consumer/user of
> the
> language. The primary benefit I see is that it provides a path forward
> towards
> better casting logic in the language, which will ensure that =E2=80=94 in=
 the
> future =E2=80=94
> this:
>
>     $value =3D (int) $value;
>
> will operate properly, and raise errors when data loss may occur. It mean=
s
> that
> immediately, if I start using STH, I can be assured that _if_ my code
> runs, I
> have values of the correct type, as they've been coerced safely. The lack
> of a
> strict mode means I can drop that defensive validation/casting code safel=
y.
>
> My point is: I'm sick of writing code like this:
>
>     /**
>      * @param int $code
>      * @param string $reason
>      */
>     public function setStatus($code, $reason =3D null)
>     {
>         $code =3D filter_var(
>             $value,
>             FILTER_VALIDATE_INT,
>             FILTER_FLAG_ALLOW_OCTAL | FILTER_FLAG_ALLOW_HEX
>         );
>         if (false =3D=3D=3D $code) {
>             throw new InvalidArgumentException(
>                 'Code must be an integer'
>             );
>         }
>         if (null !=3D=3D $reason && ! is_string_$reason) {
>             throw new InvalidArgumentException(
>                 'Reason must be null or a string'
>             );
>         }
>
>         $this->code =3D $code;
>         $this->reason =3D $reason;
>     );
>
> I want to be able to write this:
>
>     public function setStatus(int $code, string $reason =3D null)
>     {
>         $this->code =3D $code;
>         $this->reason =3D $reason;
>     );
>
> and _not_ push the burden on consumers to validate/cast their values.
>
> This is what I want from STH, no more no less: sane casting rules, and th=
e
> ability to code to scalar types safely. While I can see some of the
> benefits of
> strict mode, I'm concerned about the schism it may create in the PHP
> library
> ecosystem, and that many of the benefits of the coercive portion of that
> RFC
> will be lost when working with data from unknown data sources.
>
> If you've read thus far, thank you for your consideration. I'll stop
> bugging you
> now.
>
> --
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney
> Principal Engineer
> Project Lead, Zend Framework and Apigility
> matthew@zend.com
> http://framework.zend.com
> http://apigility.org
> PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--089e01160576abd6da050fc3a111--