Hi everybody!
If a type declaration inadvertently uses boolean or integer (instead
of bool and int, respectively), the error message is rather confusing:
[…] must be an instance of boolean, boolean given, […]
This issue has been filed as https://bugs.php.net/65656, and Adam
submitted https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/442 to fix that, but
David hinted at the potential BC break, and Joe closed the PR later
stating that such change would require an RFC.
In my opinion, it would be sufficient to change the error message so
that the canonical name of the type would be used, i.e. bool and
int, respectively, so the message above would read:
[…] must be an instance of boolean, bool given, […]
This change would still be a BC break, but at a far smaller scale than
Adam's PR would have been.
So I am asking for opinions whether this change would be worth the BC
break, and whether a respective RFC could target PHP 7.3, or would have
to wait for PHP 8.
--
Christoph M. Becker
Hi everybody!
If a type declaration inadvertently uses
booleanorinteger(instead
ofboolandint, respectively), the error message is rather confusing:[…] must be an instance of boolean, boolean given, […]
This issue has been filed as https://bugs.php.net/65656, and Adam
submitted https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/442 to fix that, but
David hinted at the potential BC break, and Joe closed the PR later
stating that such change would require an RFC.In my opinion, it would be sufficient to change the error message so
that the canonical name of the type would be used, i.e.booland
int, respectively, so the message above would read:[…] must be an instance of boolean, bool given, […]
Or why not:
[…] must be an instance of class boolean, boolean given, […]
but I guess we then need to also use "trait" or "interface" as words
there too.
cheers,
Derick
This issue has been filed as https://bugs.php.net/65656, and Adam
submitted https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/442 to fix that, but
David hinted at the potential BC break, and Joe closed the PR later
stating that such change would require an RFC.In my opinion, it would be sufficient to change the error message so
that the canonical name of the type would be used, i.e.booland
int, respectively, so the message above would read:[…] must be an instance of boolean, bool given, […]
Or why not:
[…] must be an instance of class boolean, boolean given, […]
but I guess we then need to also use "trait" or "interface" as words
there too.
That has been suggested by Adam, but 62 tests had to be modified,
pointing out the magnitude of this change. And actually, I still would
be surprised to see such an error message. It should not be possible to
have a class/interface with the same name as a scalar type – and
actually it is not.
--
Christoph M. Becker
And actually, I still would be surprised to see such an error message.
This happens when you annotate your function incorrectly:
https://3v4l.org/CoUss
This issue has been filed as https://bugs.php.net/65656, and Adam
submitted https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/442 to fix that, but
David hinted at the potential BC break, and Joe closed the PR later
stating that such change would require an RFC.In my opinion, it would be sufficient to change the error message so
that the canonical name of the type would be used, i.e.booland
int, respectively, so the message above would read:[…] must be an instance of boolean, bool given, […]
Or why not:
[…] must be an instance of class boolean, boolean given, […]
but I guess we then need to also use "trait" or "interface" as words
there too.That has been suggested by Adam, but 62 tests had to be modified,
pointing out the magnitude of this change. And actually, I still would
be surprised to see such an error message. It should not be possible to
have a class/interface with the same name as a scalar type – and
actually it is not.--
Christoph M. Becker