Re: Re: type hinting

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 13:16 -0500, Elizabeth M Smith wrote: > Afternoon, > > Wow, go away for a weekend and look what happens... > > Personally I think the issue is that true "scalar" type hinting doesn't > make much sense with a dynamically typed language. Deciding if/when/how > to juggle a scalar typehint is going to make at least one person angry > and some new user confused. > > However, I have to agree with the fact that the current typehinting > system feels "unfinished". I can tell a function that it has to be > passed an array or some specific type of object, but can't tell it that > it has to be passed a scalar type, or a resource, or any generic object. > > These don't "juggle" well like the generic scalar (int, bool, float, > string) types. Is there any reason we can't at least add "scalar" and > "resource" (and possibly "object" for generic objects) to typehints? It > wouldn't be the full "scalar typehinting" solution that people are > yelling for, but it would cut out lines of bad input handling in my own > code, and make the current typehint solution feel more complete. Scalar, resource, and object type hints would be very useful, and fit perfectly with the current type juggling system. I still support all of the hints, but these 3 alone have an even stronger argument than the other ones. > My own $0.02, > Elizabeth Smith >