Re: [RFC] Scalar Type Hints v0.2

Hi Stas, > On 14 Jan 2015, at 23:29, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree. Being wrong is bad, making a mistake is bad, but having split > personality language and not knowing in which world you are - or even > worse, having to deal with both worlds in the same code and being thrown > back and forth between them by some little switch which is easy to miss > - IMO is worse. I don't like strict typing in PHP because I think it is > contrary to the idea of how dynamic languages should work, but I'd > rather have that then two sets of rules living within the same code, > especially when looking at the function I can't even know how it would > work without checking if there's a declare hiding somewhere. And > refactoring becomes a nightmare - what if I moved function from strict > world to non-strict world or vice versa? It’s not about the location of the function, but the call site. You can place a function anywhere and it will behave identically. > I also agree with Dmitry in other thread - if some conv rules are so bad > everybody hates them (or at least you think it is the case :), we can > change them. We are already on that track with some weird ones like > array->string. Even with BC effects, IMO better than too many sets of > rules. There are some minor issues with the conversion rules that could be fixed, but a lot of people have a problem not just with the conversion rules, but with the implicit conversion itself. The previous RFC (Scalar Type Hinting with Casts) wasn’t popular with many people for that reason: sure, it had stricter rules, but that won’t please people who want no conversion whatsoever. Thanks. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/