Re: type hinting

HI Sam, On Feb 6, 2008 2:33 PM, Sam Barrow <sam@sambarrow.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 14:20 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Sam Barrow wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 09:31 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > True, but we have to consider the fact that we don't have enough support > > > on that side. > > > > This is not some election campaign were you change what you believe in > > just to go get followers. So no, I will not take that into > > consideration. > > > > Derick > > When did I change my opinion. I'm putting forth a compromise that may be > able to make both sides happy. If we can all agree to a scalar type hint > I don't see anything wrong with that. A scalar type brings none of the advantages of a full set of type hints. I see zero gain to scalar in comparison to what we have now. I'm still in favor of having all types available. Cheers, ps: nobody wants you to "shut up", it is an open list. -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org