Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83624
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.213.174 as permitted sender)
References: <7ef509ef10bb345c792f9d259c7a3fbb@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEPJduk3VgWYgpuJ4G0JvUXYaMoO7430Q0k7v5ifwWF_dzh9rA@mail.gmail.com>
	<9aec85c81b49009c6238ff6d8be27cd4@mail.gmail.com>	<CAEPJdukoBG3M1q3UqJ9LW-GBqhVB7-ybkdJqiGENN2w10XqEhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<f881d1e1bb6026b96498cfd787d3fd0a@mail.gmail.com>	<CAEPJdumFJup3mKsaYxi11O0f6L3BAvOUa=Z9tTKy8B01tvu8PQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<2dcfd9f4a3f0f9bbf2a13f679359e6ea@mail.gmail.com>	<CAEPJdunt2GxC0tmwmkegAOfeuZ992XLaRB--Y6W9AE1Z4Lg7KA@mail.gmail.com>
	<6844321d7134506b1061c5f18a275069@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAyV7nEuWr4hAxFWZCB+CKsoQoisyitfW5Y+H7s5=wVid3_9rQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<408f8a8532601425b1c501f333fa6135@mail.gmail.com> <CAAyV7nGLaaFxOC8vkn6sDZiH1zzzHsGdqg7dDA0Nrgxg8NtO+A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nGLaaFxOC8vkn6sDZiH1zzzHsGdqg7dDA0Nrgxg8NtO+A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQKcPg+jpyYspJS11b5G1A7RBHpKTgIs5D7XAe7Kvi4CGebHCAJMMZoCAoqDIoMBjxhKrQKJLKIhAM+qbcsB+3/aHQHgRA1gAZjnsAqau7tC0A==
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 01:27:40 +0200
Message-ID: <58557dc38e4427681739b9991b5c6ea2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Coercive Scalar Type Hints RFC
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmaxell@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:12 AM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Coercive Scalar Type Hints RFC
>
> Well, I am concerned at this error rate we're seeing that we won't cause
> significant perf degradation due to the errors (even with reporting=0).
> And
> that's not mentioning log files.

I'd say that's a feature - excellent motivation to fix these warnings! :)

> > Last, we don't yet have an answer to your question about the billions
> > of lines of code out there.  But as I told to Benjamin, we have every
> > intention to try the patch out on some real world apps and see how it
> performs.
> >
> > Let me assure you that if we find that there are hundreds of issues
> > trying to get common apps to work, after we tweak the rules - I'll
> > either retract the RFC or the very least rethink the internal functions
> > part of
> it.
>
> Sounds great. My concern here though is that my instinct says that either
> the
> rules are going to come out so similar to today's rules as to not be
> effective,
> or break enough code that it's not worth it.
>
> Please continue the patch, and let's test iterations. I just don't see
> where the
> magic line will be (not breaking too much while providing enough benefit
> to
> please the proponents of strict types).

I hope we can find that middle ground, triggering a reasonable number of
issues, that will actually gradually push people towards stricter code.  But
I agree that the jury is still out on whether that's possible.
I think diving into some of the found issues is as interesting as counting
the number of failures.  Are we (with some tweaks) onto a gold mine of
potential issues here, or a torrent of noise?  Anyway, we'll see.

Thanks,

Zeev