Re: weak and strict type checking RFC

hi. On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith<mls@pooteeweet.org> wrote: > Well to me it Sounded like you wanted to Rely on Standard Type juggling and > what i am proposing is more strict than that. More over i am Not convinced > that strict should Be the Default. The default is what we have now (implicit mixed). The (type) syntax is known already, it would be rather confusing to use yet another syntax in this case. I like the current proposal with "int foo" for strict and "(int) foo" for an automatic cast. As Gwynne suggested on IRC, I would also like to have "mixed", for completeness. It brings nothing but it makes the code clearer. Another useful type would be "callback". Cheers, -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org