Re: [RFC] Scalar Type Hints v0.2

Hi Rowan, > On 14 Jan 2015, at 15:45, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote: > > Perhaps it would be clearer if the RFC (and the documentation, if this is accepted) referred to > the non-strict as something other than "weak". It makes it sound like only a weak check > will be performed, and some values of the "wrong" type will be allowed through, when in > reality you will always get exactly the type asked for. > > Maybe "coercive type-checking" would more accurately reflect the functionality? Yeah, that’s an issue I’m aware of, “type checking" would suggest it merely “checks”, but it actually has the same implicit conversion behaviour used by extension and built-in PHP functions. I’m not sure what to call it. I don’t really think “coercive type-checking” is particularly better. Anyone who has a suggestion for a name, please feel free to offer it. Thanks. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/