Re: [RFC] Scalar Type Hinting With Casts (re-opening)

On 14 Jul 2014, at 15:03, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote: > Looking at the current table in the RFC, I'm not clear why NULL should pass as any value, > but not array. Could it not behave the same as the existing type hints, i.e. accepted only if > declared as a default? > > function foo(array $bar) { } foo(null); // ERROR > function foo(array $bar=null) { } foo(null); // OK, $bar == NULL > function foo(int $bar) { } foo(null); // ERROR > function foo(int $bar=null) { } foo(null); // OK, $bar == NULL I’m thinking this as well. I wonder if perhaps it should be casted by default, but if you make it explicitly nullable, it won’t cast if NULL is passed. > In summary, I think if the rules can be explained concisely, and the table derived from those > rules, it will feel less confusing than having to consult the table to be sure of the effect. > > Having to say "for arrays, the logic is this; for strings, this; for integers, this; for > booleans, the other" makes the whole thing seem like a bit of a kludge, and is exactly what the > existing "lossy" casts suffer from. > > I would stress that I see this as a new definition of "lossless cast"; this RFC is > intentionally *not* using the existing cast logic, as explicit casts *never fail*, so "but > existing casts work this way" is not relevant. Right. I’d like the rules to be simple enough. I think the string, int and float ones make perfect sense and can be easily explained, it’s bool I’m uncertain about. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/