Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85192
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.53 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALuY8tgw1rC+9jw1szQAAk0t7GjByPaM_JSVwzF-fqr0nUXV0w@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>
	<CALuY8tg_-AS9KYV-tKEBnrgbotszh_rZkfGg0dBAjLATpWRoSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB6YZuy9dVaNvKiai8UExigQTt8tjC=FwK_XeOqmofpATgfDPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALuY8tgw1rC+9jw1szQAAk0t7GjByPaM_JSVwzF-fqr0nUXV0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:12:27 +0100
Message-ID: <CAB6YZuxvWX7u-iyBVOArfVOqbcVLiVoPCGjFRtDW9OkVKubbqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Nefedov <inefedor@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Accepted] Scalar Type Declarations V0.5
From: pajousek@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Pavel_Kou=C5=99il?=)

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Nikita Nefedov <inefedor@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2015 15:52, "Pavel Kou=C5=99il" <pajousek@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I made that conclusion because in the first example, the library kinda
>> forces strict mode rules on the caller, even if he doesn't want to use
>> strict mode - this makes the interoperability of the two modes
>> problematic.
>
> This is incorrect, library force itself to use right types, not you. I do=
n't
> see any problems here. The only thing that for sure lacks in PHP and that
> would make STH better is callable signature types.
>

Well, it forces you to do that, basically. And also forces you to
"care" about the mode of library, adding mental overhead. Look more
closesly at the first example - does the error in that case make sense
to you (from purely user's point of view)? When you call
a(function(int $b) {return $b * 2; }) - should you really be required
to check the context within the a() is declared?

>> Also, the other possible outcome of the scenario (respecting the mode
>> of the place where the callback is declared), is IMHO problematic as
>> well, because it does not respect the strict mode of the place where
>> it is called, making it inconsistent with how the dual mode RFC works
>> in general.
>
> It doesn't matter where the callback or function was declared, it only
> matters where it was called. It pretty much is consistent.

This was just a comment about how it would be (also) wrong to solve it
the other way around.