Re: type hinting

On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 09:31 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote: > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Steph Fox wrote: > > > > As with so many topics on this list, I have no authority to influence > > > the outcome. I personally think they've all got rules to instantly > > > delete my email (but that's cause I'm paranoid). > > > > That's rubbish Richard - in some ways you're the most important person on the > > list. Odd, eh? > > > > > I think allowing the the hints and them to be enforced if E_STRICT is > > > set is the way to go. > > > > Speaking as a -0, I tend to think that's a bit too close to a +1. But others > > may think otherwise. > > I still we should add simple static typehints (ie. just the types that > we use in the manual) - and they should behave in the same way as the > other type hints that we laready have. > > Derick True, but we have to consider the fact that we don't have enough support on that side. I think the scalar type hint is a perfect compromise. I don't see anybody arguing, as I said to some people, the most compelling arguments against type hinting are pretty much void for just a scalar type hint. It's not int, float, etc. but it's much better than nothing. > -- > Derick Rethans > http://derickrethans.nl | > http://ezcomponents.org | > http://xdebug.org >