Re: [RFC] Scalar Type Hints v0.2

Hi Dmitry, > On 2 Feb 2015, at 19:26, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote: > > Agree. Strict type checks are simple and may be implemented more efficient. > But in case we have to support both - weak and strict, this won't make any advantage. I think this still works even if we support both. The RFC’s approach means that within one file everything is strictly-typed, for example (except in rare cases of declare() block usage). > Static analyzers can work with weak conversion rules as well. This is true, but weak conversion rules are less useful for error-checking in practice: for some conversions, you can’t say AOT if they’ll work or fail, just that they’ll “maybe” succeed. So I think analysis of strictly-typed code would be more effective. > Anyway, this is not directly related to run-time semantic we discuss now. This is true. Thanks. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/