Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85090
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.53 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAN=kQJc64jqpSQxq7uaWOzTQeY2KLJAfyQc_qp=T_G5-akfCEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGa2bXZJZp8APWXx1e2FakD=7fX4by69DekEsXLbp4b3q7CU0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN=kQJc64jqpSQxq7uaWOzTQeY2KLJAfyQc_qp=T_G5-akfCEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 05:57:45 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGa2bXbmA4UnWcWSHCVcEuvrbgA_uhvyyM5ibEy4VtW0tjTVAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Leverton <leverton@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01537d1e7d562005116e1cdf
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] "strict_types" should be renamed "raise_type_error".
 WAS: About declare(strict_types = 1)
From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki)

--089e01537d1e7d562005116e1cdf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi Matthew and all,

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Matthew Leverton <leverton@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I think this is important, but not many people realize the importance.
> > Therefore I created this as a new thread at the last minutes of vote.
> >
> ...
> >
> > "strict_mode" is just controlling errors, then it should be named as
> error
> > controlling directive and raise E_WARNING/E_TYPE or whatever.
> >
> > Even if what its controlling is error that can be overridden by caller,
> yet
> > calling it "strict_types" is not correct. Proper name would be something
> > like "raise_type_error".
> >
> > Let's see how it looks if "strict_types" is renamed to "raise_type_error"
> >
> ...
> > <?php
> >         declare(raise_type_error = 1);
> >         require "lib.php";
> >         foo("123"); // will give an error
> > ?>
> >
> I agree that the name doesn't by itself explain the feature, but how
> could it possibly? You'd end up with something like:
>
>
> declare(raise_type_errors_on_parameter_mismatches_when_calling_functions_from_this_file_regardless_of_where_the_functions_are_defined_and_what_the_setting_is_in_other_files=1);
>
> I don't think your suggestion explains the feature any better than
> strict_types.


The word "strict" is not right word for the feature. It should not be used
to avoid
confusions at least.

Anyway, my point is "Is everyone feel right about following behavior"
regardless of
directive name.

<?php
        declare(raise_type_error = 1); // declare(strict_types=1) with the
RFC
        function foo(int $a) {
        // no function call here
        }
?>
The declare here does just nothing.

<?php
        require "lib.php";
        foo("123"); // will work
?>

<?php
        declare(raise_type_error = 1); // declare(strict_types=1) with the
RFC
        require "lib.php";
        foo("123"); // will give an error
?>

This is the same basically as

<?php
        error_reporting(E_TYPE);
        function foo(int $a) {
        // no function call here
        }
?>
The error_reporting() here does just nothing.

<?php
        require "lib.php";
        foo("123"); // will work
?>

<?php
        $old = error_reporting(E_TYPE);
        require "lib.php";
        error_reporting($old);
        foo("123"); // will give an error
?>

Does this make sense?

Regards,

--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net

--089e01537d1e7d562005116e1cdf--