Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85009
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.217.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU7qa9N+4HYdtjseN4K83e0Oy8rZDi8FbXfJ9Zp0ks6rRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABBJUpfiy1BpdyZ5MJmQb3vQz9U8TkSECHCRctupV+BUG1H=fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU7qa9N+4HYdtjseN4K83e0Oy8rZDi8FbXfJ9Zp0ks6rRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:05:21 +0800
Message-ID: <CABBJUpe_fUiwuJw5Q-u+ntVOyVU-xN+C2EFL79TmJJu7Gmh38w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] About declare(strict_types = 1)
From: laruence@php.net (Xinchen Hui)

Hey:

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 16, 2015 4:29 PM, "Xinchen Hui" <laruence@php.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hey:
>>
>>      The most unaccept feature in current STH thing(v.5.0) is this.
>>
>>      acutaly, I believe in most applications, they will still keep this
>> off..
>>
>>      so why we introduce such thing?
>>
>>      beside this,  I have a question, which is not explained in the RFC:
>>
>>      lib.php
>>      <?php
>>        declare(strict_types = 1);
>>        function add(int $a, int $b) {
>>        }
>>      ?>
>>
>>      assuming lib.php is a thrid part library which I want to use it
>> in my project.
>>
>>      but I use whole weak types in my project..
>>
>>      thus I simply call  add by:
>>
>>      <?php
>>
>>       add($_GET['a'], $_GET['b']); //recoverable error  since all
>> input in _GET _POST is string by default
>>
>>      ?>
>>
>>      that means, I need to add a lots of (int) while I try to call a
>> function in a library which is not written by myself.
>>
>>      is that right?
>
> You got the answer but one thing bothers me a lot right now.
>
> How did you vote against this rfc while missing the core point of it (after
> actually having a strict mode)?
as I said,
"
 acutaly, I believe in most applications, they will still keep this off..

  so why we introduce such thing?
"
I don't like strict_types at all..

the question I asked is just want  one of my concern is not ture, or
not oversight by others.

thanks


-- 
Xinchen Hui
@Laruence
http://www.laruence.com/