Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85185
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAB6YZuzkxWWq7ZA29TZVDsX7zBaEMvUGU7MC0gyuZHyZMNpqMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nEtdFSdPMieK0EvdO+moCqDw7KH59=Lr3+pA10rn=isoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB6YZuzrokpubXKKOzeM5tH=n2K6WPfX+YDwyKb4tByg33G7zw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACwt+JdBDN95uN8csq5UaELozj3P4wbswhaYxvZ2hqh5JjALLw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB6YZuzkxWWq7ZA29TZVDsX7zBaEMvUGU7MC0gyuZHyZMNpqMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:13:34 +0400
Message-ID: <CALuY8tg_-AS9KYV-tKEBnrgbotszh_rZkfGg0dBAjLATpWRoSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Pavel_Kou=C5=99il?= <pajousek@gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e48582e262e05118f03d2
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Accepted] Scalar Type Declarations V0.5
From: inefedor@gmail.com (Nikita Nefedov)

--047d7b2e48582e262e05118f03d2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 18 Mar 2015 14:32, "Pavel Kou=C5=99il" <pajousek@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015, Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net>
> wrote:
> > Le mer. 18 mars 2015 =C3=A0 10:56, Pavel Kou=C5=99il <pajousek@gmail.co=
m> a =C3=A9crit
:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Your intuition is correct.
> >
> >>
> >> But at the same time, if there will be an error in the first example,
> >> it is IMHO a huge flaw with this RFC. :/
> >
> > Flaw vs. design choice. This is one of the reason that this aspect,
> amongst others, has been very debated.
>
> But if it works this way, the strict mode isn't optional and users of a
> library NEED to care which mode the library uses?

If library chose to use strict mode then the odds are it will take care of
passing right types to callbacks and interfaced methods.

Saying that strict mode isn't optional is not true, I don't see why you
have made this conclusion.

--047d7b2e48582e262e05118f03d2--