Re: [VOTE] Strict operators directive

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 12:06 Christian Schneider <cschneid@cschneid.com> wrote: > Am 09.07.2019 um 11:30 schrieb Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>: > > I wasn't sure about the full implications of this, but after some > thought, > > the worst that can happen is excessive strictness, requiring to drop a > > single declaration on top of a file 👍 > > When you drop the declaration on top of the file the semantics of your > operators suddenly change, e.g. > "42" < "7" > changes from true to false and you get subtle bugs. > > And if you try to read other people's code (or even try to copy/paste it) > then make sure you keep in mind which mode they are programming in. > > - Chris > > > Hi Chris, That is already true for strict_types: my only worry with this directive so far is hitting edge cases that I didn't think of yet (requiring disabling it selectively). Doing that is pretty harmless if combined with testing and static analysis (which are an unavoidable assumption). Another way to restrict this RFC further is to allow this directive only when strict_types is already enabled, reducing the possible permutations of language behaviour.