Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94254 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 48064 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2016 17:57:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Jun 2016 17:57:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=theodorejb@outlook.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=theodorejb@outlook.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain outlook.com designates 65.54.190.80 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: theodorejb@outlook.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 65.54.190.80 bay004-omc2s5.hotmail.com Received: from [65.54.190.80] ([65.54.190.80:62356] helo=BAY004-OMC2S5.hotmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 81/37-00500-A06CE675 for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2016 13:57:31 -0400 Received: from BAY178-W7 ([65.54.190.123]) by BAY004-OMC2S5.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Sat, 25 Jun 2016 10:57:27 -0700 X-TMN: [G1t3vM5AS9t+8aztoO9rP/pF1RlnWx+x] X-Originating-Email: [theodorejb@outlook.com] Message-ID: To: "internals@lists.php.net" Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 12:57:27 -0500 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <1e1213c6-3e61-3106-98f8-ce7ab74200e2@fleshgrinder.com> References: ,<1e1213c6-3e61-3106-98f8-ce7ab74200e2@fleshgrinder.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2016 17:57:28.0088 (UTC) FILETIME=[0977A180:01D1CF0B] Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC DISCUSSION] var_type From: theodorejb@outlook.com (Theodore Brown) On Sat=2C 25 Jun 2016 17:25 +0200 Fleshgrinder wrote:=0A= >=0A= > I finished the RFC:=0A= >=0A= > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/var_type=0A= >=0A= =0A= Thanks for this RFC! I think it's a great way to make PHP's=0A= type system more consistent without breaking backwards=0A= compatibility. I especially like that it would fix confusing=0A= error messages like "Argument must be an instance of boolean=2C=0A= boolean given."=0A= =0A= I noticed that the "A Successor" section of the RFC still contains=0A= a bunch of references to typeof (in the function signature and code=0A= examples). Did you forget to change these to var_type?=0A= =0A= Theodore Brown=0A= =