Re: [RFC] Scalar Type Hints

On 2 January 2015 at 15:01, Jordi Boggiano <j.boggiano@seld.be> wrote: > Looking at it from an OSS maintainer perspective, introducing strict hints > in code would be a huge BC break as I don't know how people use my code, > nor if they validate/coerce their user input early or not. If I suddenly > declare something as int and someone used to pass '5', they get an error. > That would make adoption quite hard in OSS IMO if you don't want to bother > people. > Regardless if this RFC gets through or not, changing the signature of a method IS a BC break in any case, so you shouldn't just move your int declaration from the docblocks into the method signature. That'd be a simple lib to write, it barely adds more code to your > functions, and you get strict typing. But I hardly see anyone do this, and > I would argue it's because it sounds appealing in theory but it's not worth > it in practice. > I'm actually already using https://github.com/beberlei/assert for that, and I'd like to get rid of it for simpler types. Marco Pivetta http://twitter.com/Ocramius http://ocramius.github.com/