Re: Type hinting

As man from userland, I totally agree with Larry. I see completely no sense in raising error when a safe conversion can be done. And I don't like current implementation at all. It is completely not-php-way. 2010/5/28 Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> > On Friday 28 May 2010 01:54:55 am Zeev Suraski wrote: > > At 08:28 28/05/2010, Tjerk Anne Meesters wrote: > > >On the other hand, auto-casting used to be my favourite until I > > >glanced over the conversion table; it's not just regular casting, it > > >has different rules. I wouldn't want to be the one going over that > > >table when writing code against a certain API, I should only need to > > >see the documentation. > > > > Tjerk, > > > > I think you have a nice idea about E_STRICT, except it makes much > > more sense with auto-conversion. That is - in case of 'fail' - we'd > > still convert, and emit E_STRICT (or E_NOTICE). That means that the > > API developer will always get the type he expects, while the user > > will be guided in the right direction in a friendly PHPish manner. > > The conversion table is up for discussion, BTW. If most people > > prefer that it's more similar to PHP's existing auto-conversion rules > > (that appears to be the case) we can certainly do that. > > > > Zeev > > I'm not 100% sure I follow, Zeev. Are you suggesting: > > foo (int $a) { } > > foo(1); // Works, no message > foo("1"); // Works, no message > foo("1a"); // Emits E_STRICT or E_NOTICE and casts to a 1 > foo(array(1)); // Fatal > > I could get behind that. In fact it also suggests that we could (later?) > alter the normal casting rules so that if you do a lossy conversion you get > a > notice/strict in any case. Something to chew on. > > I like that idea, as the "purely strict" typing that's in HEAD right now I > find > worse than having no scalar type checking at all. > > --Larry Garfield > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- С уважением, Виктор