Re: [RFC] Mixed type

Hi! > I would enjoy a 'mixed' typehint for exactly that reason; i.e., that I don't > have to put it in a docblock. I think it is exactly the opposite of what should be happening in the language - putting things in the code which belong in the documentation, so you don't have to write documentation. I don't think it is a good direction. > Given this method ... > > public foo(string $bar, int $baz) : void { ... } > > ... I don't need any docblock at all for the params. You still do. You still need to describe what the parameters do and what the function does. > But given *this* method ... > > public foo(string $bar, int $baz, $dib) : void { ... } > > ... I find myself wanting (for completeness' sake) to add a docblock indicating the $dib > typehint: I think it's a misguided idea that the more type specifications the code has the better is the code. "$dib" and "mixed $dib" say *exactly* the same thing. That you do not limit what type it is. But instead of placing it in proper place for explanatory things - namely, comments - it places it in the code. > public foo(string $bar, int $baz, mixed $dib) { ... } > > ... relieves that bit of docblock dissonance. If it does so for me, I bet it would do so for > others. It just means you moved some documentation into code. Which didn't make it adequate - it's still an undocumented function - but made you feel you don't need to document it now. I don't think it's a good thing. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com