Re: Type hinting

Hi, Apparently, the discussion is not looking like it will end up in a general agreement. I'd suggest the following: 1) Since it seems that there is concerns about the current auto-casting RFC (inconsistencies, when/what errors, etc..), I believe it's authors should refine the RFC to propose what they want in a more precise way, unless what is available is exactly what they want, in which case they should state it. In my opinion, it should include: - The complete set of rules to apply - In case it is not like it is done internally, whether we should make it consistent (e.g. change the way arguments are passed to internal functions) - In which case an error is triggered, and what errors/exception - If the current hints of arrays/objects should be relaxed somehow (i.e. ArrayObject instance accepted for an "array" argument) 2) For strict typing, I believe it is clear about what it does. However, there is still room for discussion on: - Whether all types "hints" should be available (or, e.g. only numeric/scalar) - What errors/exception to trigger so, it would be nice to update the RFC(s), so that we have a solid ground on which we can discuss/vote. Best, On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 02:57, Philip Olson <philip@roshambo.org> wrote: > > This thread needed post #100 so here goes: > > - We want both options, can we accept this and focus on making it happen? > - I love using === but am okay with others ab^H^Husing == > - The strict type hinting patch now includes 'numeric' and 'scalar' type > hints > > Regards, > Philip > > -- Etienne Kneuss http://www.colder.ch