Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96054
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain netwake.de from 78.47.58.218 cause and error)
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAJMCqJnyx+MAGF0O674dMxXk3FH6hsnz4qUF1FNG_MUAFdKu_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuQanxj-azNpRnVk86HV6Uur7BG4nkjPk-yr5uoYn01Hdg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJMCqJmu8YuG0+k+59RxB1pO1A-0jakpK-V0dO12LaaNrN=yog@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ba7118f8-8d25-9c8a-6db6-331c59cdb006@netwake.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:26:32 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJMCqJmu8YuG0+k+59RxB1pO1A-0jakpK-V0dO12LaaNrN=yog@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Strict comparisons
From: thomas.lamy@netwake.de (Thomas Lamy)

Am 21.09.16 um 14:49 schrieb Vesa Kaihlavirta:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 at 02:20 Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Vesa,
>>
>> On 19 September 2016 at 14:04, Vesa Kaihlavirta <vpkaihla@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> My idea is to add a strict_comparisons declaration that you can add at
>> the
>>> beginning of a file in the same way as strict_types.
>>>
>>> Please take a look and let me know if this would be worth a more official
>>> RFC.
>> I think it deserves an RFC.
+1 for RFC
> Cool! I'll write some more unit test cases and start working on the RFC
> text.
>
>> One thing that might make people hesitant about this, is that it's
>> likely that you would want to have the occasional weak comparison in a
>> file.
>>
>> However that should mostly covered by just adding a cast where needed
>> presumably? e.g. like:
>>
>> $foo = '5 apples';
>>
>> if ((int)$foo == 5) {
>>      echo "eh, close enough";
>> }
>>
> Yeah, that works. I added that as a test case.
>
> What still worries me personally is ===. What do you think would be the
> least incorrect way to handle === (and other identicality operations) when
> strict_comparisons is in effect? I thought of the following options:
>
> 1) === works like ==, that is, makes type checks and throws exceptions if
> the types don't match
>
> 2) === is not affected by strict_comparisons. It would then be *weaker*
> than == when s_c is on (since it would just return false instead of
> throwing). That would offer a sort of a convenient way out of the strictest
> comparison mode, but might be confusing.
>
> 3) === is disabled/not allowed when s_c is on. Would lessen the risk of
> confusion.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --vk
I'd prefer (2). At least in our code base (~3M LOC) it's the uptrending 
comparison, and widely used for type and range checking, imidiately 
followed by proper handling of the error cases.
IMHO anything other than (2) would be too big of a BC break to get votes.

Best,
Thomas