Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85562 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 6360 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2015 16:30:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Mar 2015 16:30:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cmbecker69@gmx.de; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cmbecker69@gmx.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.17.20 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cmbecker69@gmx.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.227.17.20 mout.gmx.net Received: from [212.227.17.20] ([212.227.17.20:58415] helo=mout.gmx.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 97/27-04595-01A79155 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:30:09 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([88.134.68.210]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lngv5-1Z6i4B3S9P-00hrRg; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:30:04 +0200 Message-ID: <55197A0E.8050203@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:30:06 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zeev Suraski , PHP internals References: <3a939905cd5a06158c9e99d8af26e596@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3a939905cd5a06158c9e99d8af26e596@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:8nyZVfYWFImUuobX+sYidz8ZGs6nDG7J24C0TjoGEMwwte+F560 UsJnPo3cE8eh8Nf0RB/XX5AXyndECYDAgZgbc326v9/Erbq+uBfBMH3u6zxd4MpC+LRr+/R 4hzFf9pbAu0N3qpTAMa63R+BqGBZ73eofAp0g92Uy2NqKa6BKnfVrE5kWCWR7QYRz8qqrBv ZcRdP1khZMMkqSiO51uIw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Subject: Re: Naming of 'weak' type hints From: cmbecker69@gmx.de (Christoph Becker) Zeev Suraski wrote: > One thing that I think we should change is how we refer to the ‘weak’ type > hints. The word ‘weak’ has a negative ring to it, and considering this is > how the language behaves across the board it’s a pretty bad name for this > feature. > Personally I think we should go for ‘dynamic’ when we document it, as this > is the common way to refer to this behavior (dynamic languages). We could > also consider going for ‘lax’ or ‘lenient’ as the opposite of ‘strict’, > although I think we can easily do without introducing a new word into the > vocabulary here. It appears to me that all of these suggestions may hide the fact that the arguments are converted to the hinted types. So perhaps "converting type hints" might be a good name. Then again, the respective declare directive is called "strict_types", so maybe it's best to speak of "non-strict type hints". -- Christoph M. Becker