Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96580
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain koalephant.com designates 206.123.115.54 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
In-Reply-To: <25d4a92c-e1d4-a420-d143-e66eaa8344ab@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:44:44 +0700
Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Brzuchalski?= <michal@brzuchalski.com>,
 PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <89D29CE4-3E2E-4421-9E79-17D0F10A733B@koalephant.com>
References: <CABdc3WpeqPVfz=RgViAg55pXT_XdgWWWBngTReed31Tt1rwk1g@mail.gmail.com> <1e7da1db-9fc6-a3ce-9cba-b219af2dd7d4@gmail.com> <7F1CFE1E-48A4-450E-BFD5-645100A16AE9@koalephant.com> <6b490ba3-ad2d-2a2b-9117-de53ce7fea7f@gmail.com> <D7FD6A69-4CBE-4900-A61D-BC4E6CCC6E62@koalephant.com> <6954f170-bd74-310f-9ae2-23bda498603d@gmail.com> <DD49677D-6268-4E6F-A42D-C6372EF2AB4E@koalephant.com> <25d4a92c-e1d4-a420-d143-e66eaa8344ab@gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Object type hint
From: php-lists@koalephant.com (Stephen Reay)


> On 24 Oct 2016, at 13:12, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Hi!
>=20
>> I didn=92t suggest we add anything because why not. Knowing something
>> is an object is quite similar to knowing something is an array, and
>=20
> That's the point - it's not. Array is just an array, all arrays are =
the
> same inside. Objects are all different, SPLFileInfo object has nothing
> in common with PDORow object and with GMP number object.

The internals are irrelevant if you just want to check/read a public =
property.

>=20
>> I honestly don=92t see the difference between the following (except
>> that one is currently possible without extra is_* type checks):
>>=20
>> foo(array $bar) { if (array_key_exists(=91something=92, $bar)) {=85} =
}
>>=20
>> foo(object $bar) { if (property_exists($bar, =91something=92) {=85} }
>=20
> I'm not sure how adding "object" helps here - now instead of checking
> when you call property_exists you need to check when you call foo().
> Same is achieved with is_object, and virtually in the same space. And
> also, why would you just check for properties of random object? What's
> the point of checking if GMP number has property "zyx" and the same =
for
> SPLFileInfo, in one function?

If you know (e.g. because of type hints, return types, or even object =
creation) that you have an object when you call foo(), no, you don=92t.=20=

Thats the whole point of type hints, surely: to remove the need to have =
manual is_* calls all over your code.

>=20
>> So to carry on from that, how is the above not less boiler plate
>> than:  foo(object $bar) { if (!is_object($bar)) { throw new
>> \InvalidArgumentException(=91foo expects parameter 1 to be an object, =
=91
>> . gettype($bar) . =91 given=92); } if (property_exists($bar, =
=91something=92)
>> {=85} }
>=20
> You can invent even longer code to show how hard it's to use php
> functions. I don't think it would make it very convincing. Adding
> language construct for it is like adding language construct for "throw
> exception if this variable equals to 0". Surely, it may be useful in
> some cases, but in most cases it's not adding anything and just adds
> clutter to the language and to the code.

It really isn=92t, simple equals tests don=92t require any boilerplate =
to be type safe. Or perhaps you=92d argue that `=3D=3D=3D` is =
unnecessary because you can just do `is_int($foo) && $foo =3D=3D 2` =
instead of `$foo =3D=3D=3D 2`?



> I understand there's a fashion that says if you have types on your
> variables that's always better, but I don't subscribe to this,
> especially when types are as generic as "object=94.

Your voting history on type-related RFC=92s makes your opinion on =
anything related to user-land types pretty clear. I=92m now done =
debating this with you - you=92re clearly going to vote no again =
regardless of what anyone says, so I=92ll bid you a good day.



> --=20
> Stas Malyshev
> smalyshev@gmail.com
>=20