Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85177
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAB6YZuzrokpubXKKOzeM5tH=n2K6WPfX+YDwyKb4tByg33G7zw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nEtdFSdPMieK0EvdO+moCqDw7KH59=Lr3+pA10rn=isoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB6YZuzrokpubXKKOzeM5tH=n2K6WPfX+YDwyKb4tByg33G7zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:01:35 +1100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU6hN_QBqi58qVm9jLJ-rgHO0aQssbho+j-WMQELstv9pQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Pavel_Kou=C5=99il?= <pajousek@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ffb463fb94105118d2b5b
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Accepted] Scalar Type Declarations V0.5
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--001a113ffb463fb94105118d2b5b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mar 18, 2015 4:56 PM, "Pavel Kou=C5=99il" <pajousek@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Voting has been closed on the scalar type declarations v0.5 RFC:
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/scalar_type_hints_v5
> >
> > At a final score of 108:48, it has been accepted for PHP 7.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
>
> Hello,
>
> how will these examples work btw?
>
> // a.php
> <?php
> declare(strict_types=3D1);
> function foo($fn) {
>     $fn("1");
> };
>
> // b.php
> <?php
> require 'a.php';
> foo(function (int $a) { return $a * 2; });
>
>
>
> // c.php
> <?php
> function foo($fn) {
>     $fn("1");
> };
>
> // d.php
> <?php
> declare(strict_types=3D1);
> require 'c.php';
> foo(function (int $a) { return $a * 2; });
>
> I can't find this in the RFC. I'd intuitively expect error in the
> first example and the second one to work OK.
>
> But at the same time, if there will be an error in the first example,
> it is IMHO a huge flaw with this RFC. :/

Git clone, compile, try, report.

It sounds pretty straight forward to me instead of asking the same
questions (in various form but it ends to the same answer).

And the patch should be applied sooner rather than later. So we can fix
bugs if there are actual ones in the current implementation.

--001a113ffb463fb94105118d2b5b--