Re: Scalar type hinting

Combining different things into one big RFC is not a good idea. It's hard to develop and test the work it it's in one big chunk. Decomposition makes it much easier. Type hinting has to have it's own RFC. Besides - someone can be willing to do type hinting patch and don't want to do the object_cast_magic one. And thanks for the support :) 2012/2/29 Simon Schick <simonsimcity@googlemail.com>: > Hi, > > We could even combine this with the following RFC: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/object_cast_magic > > If an integer is required and you pass an object, it first checks if this > object is castable to integer ;) > > Bye > Simon > > 2012/2/29 Simon Schick <simonsimcity@googlemail.com> > >> Hi, John >> >> I personally do not care about weak or strong variables at all ... I only >> want what Arvids suggested last time: >> >> >> > test(1, 2); // 2; >> > test("1", 2); // 2 >> > test("1aaa", 2); // E_NOTICE or E_TYPE and result 2 >> > test(array(2), 2); // E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR - just like with array type >> hint now. >> > >> > It's really what the most people want. Simple, easy to pick up (object >> > and array already have this) and is just optional. >> >> I count myself as a part of *most people* in this statement ;) >> I'm also quite fine with the current type-hints as you'd anyways get an >> error if you try something like this: >> >> function foo(SimpleClass $a) { >>   $a->getName(); >> } >> >> foo("Test"); >> >> If you now get *method called from an non-object* or a message that you >> have passed a value that's not compatible with *SimpleClass* ... >> >> I'd like to split this discussion in parts: >> >>    - just type-hint in functions (as we have it with classes and arrays) >>    or bind a variable to a strict type? >>       - should it then also be possible bind variables to a specific >>       class or interface? >>    - should we go for weak or strong types? >>       - the type-hint is also weak in one way because it accepts all >>       that's compatible with the given type. >> >> Bye >> Simon >> >> >> 2012/2/29 John Crenshaw <johncrenshaw@priacta.com> >> >>> I would personally be inclined towards something simpler like E_NOTICE or >>> E_WARNING, but current type hints all raise E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR. I think we >>> should be consistent, and the consistency argument may make the difference. >>> >>> There may be a strong case for changing the error level on all type hints >>> to something simpler (or new, like E_TYPE), but I think that might be >>> better to tackle that in a separate discussion. >>> >>> John Crenshaw >>> Priacta, Inc. >>> >>> From: Kris Craig [mailto:kris.craig@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:40 PM >>> To: John Crenshaw >>> Cc: Rick WIdmer; internals@lists.php.net >>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar type hinting >>> >>> I wouldn't mind that, though I'm concerned that it may not be sellable >>> because some people on here have expressed a strong opinion that this >>> shouldn't throw anything more than a notice or a warning at most, something >>> that I and others strongly disagree with.  The logical approach, to me at >>> least, is to follow the example of include() and require(); i.e. they're >>> both identical except that one throws a scary error while the other one is >>> just a warning. >>> >>> I'm fine with just throwing E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR, though I fear that may >>> alienate too many people for us to be able to get this through.  Though >>> it's possible I might be overestimating that factor. >>> >>> --Kris >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:17 PM, John Crenshaw <johncrenshaw@priacta.com >>> <mailto:johncrenshaw@priacta.com>> wrote: >>> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Rick WIdmer <vchkpw@developersdesk.com >>> <mailto:vchkpw@developersdesk.com>>wrote: >>> > >>> > > On 2/28/2012 2:58 PM, Kris Craig wrote: >>> > > >>> > >  strong int $a = "1"; // Converts to 1.  May or may not throw an >>> > > error >>> > > (I'm >>> > >> still on the fence). >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > > It this is an error, it is no longer PHP. >>> > > >>> > >>> > @Rick Though I'm not sure I'd agree with the overly broad "it is no >>> longer PHP" hyperbole, I think the basic point that it would be a >>> significant departure from the current model has merit.  So ok, you've >>> convinced me. >>> That example should not throw any errors.  I'm officially no longer on >>> the fence with that.  =) >>> > >>> > --Kris >>> OK, if we're all on the same page there, I think this means that there is >>> no significant difference between the "strong int" and "weak int" >>> in your >>> proposal (the only remaining difference being the level of error raised >>> when it cannot be converted, which IMO is not substantial enough to deserve >>> a keyword.) I'd prefer to just pick one error level to use >>> (E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR would be the most consistent) and keep everything >>> simple. >>> >>> John Crenshaw >>> Priacta, Inc. >>> >>> >>