Re: Better types without runtime checking

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:32 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Rasmus, > > While I agree with your general point regarding consistency, I just want to > take issue with sentence: > > On 11 June 2018 at 15:12, Rasmus Schultz <rasmus@mindplay.dk> wrote: > > > Hack made some very regrettable decisions in this area, and ultimately > > those features were useful at design-time only, for IDE-support - but > > we have php-doc for that purpose, and in my opinion, adding those > > features before (or unless) we're willing/able to also make them work > > consistently with the language, does more harm than good. > > > > As far as I know, every other language which has added type annotations to > a dynamically typed language has done so either using an offline tool > (treating them like compiler warnings), or as a debug-only run-time flag > (treating them like assertions). The creator of "gradual typing", which is > explicitly the basis of Python's type annotations, and at least implicitly > used by many other languages, specifically stated that it was intended to > be checked at compile-time, not run-time [1]: > Making "type hint" a "true type hint" is useful with DbC as well as static analysis tools. Perhaps, declare(strict_types=-1); // -1 indicates assert() type check. i.e. asset is disabled, no type checks. How it should behave with object would be debatable. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net