Re: back to 5.4 alpha

Derick, How is it different from having both options? Given enough time isn't it exactly the same thing? Argument verification should not be a customizable feature. Collecting the info (for documentation purposes and reflection) is something else and I think that's fine - and then the only question that remains is the syntax (which IIRC includes modifiers for strict/weak that we should probably clean up). Zeev At 21:38 11/08/2010, Derick Rethans wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Stas Malyshev wrote: So I'd propose doing the following: 1. Moving parameter typing to a feature branch (by branching current trunk and then rolling back the typing part in the trunk). 2. Starting 5.4 alpha process after that basing on trunk. Any objections to this? A little bit; yes. There is indeed 0 consensus for having the strict typehints. However, instead of removing it altogether, and instead answering every mail in this thread :P, I wrote/am writing a patch that removes the hard type checks. It however keeps the parsed structures and reflection API for it. In this sense, they're actually real hints. The patch also adds a mechanism similariy to the zend_error_cb mechanism so that extensions could override the argument type checking. As my use case for strict checking is development I'd be happy to just move the hard checks into an extension. I could even offer a soft check. It also allows some type inference which might be useful for webservice introspecition generation. I am sure SOAP might have some benefit of this, and I know that at least pecl/dbus does. The patch is attached, but not ready (I haven't remove the hard checks yet because things got busy at work). Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php