Re: Q on Primitives

Ugh. Apparantly I forgot to CC the list on those last two mails.. Sorry. Pasted so others stay in on the conversation: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:18 PM, troels knak-nielsen <troelskn@gmail.com> wrote: > <snip> That's an interesting mail, expresses a viewpoint I hadn't considered, so, thanks for that. However: If PHP provides such a set in stone opinion on how things should be done, then why does it support, for example, provide class vs functional programming paradigms - both to a first degree level? (the mysqli extension is a very good example of what I mean here). As I have seen it, PHP is one of the best of all tools: it provides the features that many different programmers wish to use, and allows them to use it. It doesn't restrict itself to any single spectrum of programming, and I think that robustness is one reason it has flourished, and continues to do so well into the future. I see this as just another logical extension of that philosophy: you see this as being "not the PHP way", whilst I see it as the polar opposite: enabling programmers to do things as they wish, which I have always thought was very much the PHP way :) ------------ On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Nathan Rixham <nrixham@gmail.com> wrote: > because all of those current declarations would no longer work on the new > version of php which implemented such change..? and I'm assuming it would be > a much bigger change to the php internals than adding in an optional type > after the method params..? They would continue to work, because (you seem to be missing this point of what I am suggesting) - 'function' would just mean a return of a variant type (i.e. the current behaviour of not caring what it is, and not touching it in any way Whether or not it is a large change I am not qualified to suggest; I haven't yet done too extensive a digging into the internals.