Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:87118 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 5261 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2015 08:27:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Jul 2015 08:27:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.214 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.147.176.214 mail4-2.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [217.147.176.214] ([217.147.176.214:38654] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 3A/E1-23914-3E422A55 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 04:27:16 -0400 Received: (qmail 8344 invoked by uid 89); 12 Jul 2015 08:27:12 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 8337, pid: 8340, t: 0.0748s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52/d:10677 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.8?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@81.138.11.136) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 12 Jul 2015 08:27:12 -0000 Message-ID: <55A224E0.4090804@lsces.co.uk> Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 09:27:12 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <55A16375.4000707@php.net> <55A220D8.3090004@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <55A220D8.3090004@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP7 and types From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 12/07/15 09:10, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> Not completely bogus. At least with typed properties you won't need to >> > actually write the docblocks to have the IDE "hints". It's a minor win >> > for IDE users too. > I don't see "not needing to write docblocks" as a win, quite the > contrary. In fact, in a number of projects I worked with, code without > proper documentation (including docblocks) simply wasn't accepted into > the repository. > > While I don't think this needs to be mandatory, I also don't see major > difference - so you have to write type instead of docblock, you still > have to write something. In addition, the docblock contains a lot more material than just a few types, so one still needs to have one. The main problem with adding types is they become part of the code, while a docblock can simple be stripped. As a 'minor win for IDE users' it is also questionable since the every IDE will need to be re-written to support both methods of working. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk