Re: [RFC] Strict operators directive

Fixed the formatting. Sorry about that. :-s I really want to have a discussion prior to creating, to make sure there is consensus on what should be implemented. However, I will create a patch prior to voting. The implementation I have in mind is; 1. add a flag to CG(active_op_array)->fn_flags (similar to strict_types) *. 2. split function get_binary_op into get_binary_op_standard and a new function get_binary_op_strict, where get_binary_op calls either based on the op flag **. 3. add new functions for strict operators to zend_operators.c * https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/065559828022b37e88fc8eae4194efafea1b1506/Zend/zend_compile.c#L5127 ** https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/e18c60cd8dfed02311ebb3d11e3543d9a99c7c2a/Zend/zend_opcode.c#L1023 As proof of concept, I've created a test where the strict_types directive affects the == and != operators, making them do an 'identical', resp 'not identical' operation. https://github.com/jasny/php-src/compare/PHP-7.4...jasny:strict_types-affect-operators-test ( to test build branch and run https://gist.github.com/jasny/eacd187c949459b70d8f8f0818411f0a ) I've added this information to the RFC. Any suggestions or remarks on the way to implement this are appreciated. On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:32 PM Joe Watkins <krakjoe@gmail.com> wrote: > Evening, > > There doesn't seem to be a patch or implementation. > > Aside from the proposed semantics, which I can't really read because the > document is malformed, the most important questions for me are: How is this > going to work? Can it be done without significant complexity in the > compiler or VM? > > Without an implementation I can't really consider the ideas proposed, > because they are just ideas without proof that they are reasonably > implementable. > > While you can technically move forward with an RFC without implementation, > in this case the implementation should inform our decision at vote time. > > Cheers > Joe > > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019, 23:19 Benjamin Morel, <benjamin.morel@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Impressive work indeed, this would be a perfect addition to strict_types >> that would remove a lot of WTFs while preserving BC with older code. >> >> Please note that the formatting of the RFC is broken after the Bitwise >> Operators section. >> >> Ben >> >