Re: What do we need strict scalar type hints for?

I mean a lot of work designing this concept properly, writing RFC, discussing, coming to consensus, etc The implementation itself may be quite simple. If anyone can take care about design, I may help with implementation. Thanks. Dmitry. On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote: > >> The idea of that RFC was an ability to have zero-cost assert(). >> >> DbC is a much more bigger feature, it is interesting, but requires >> significant work. > > > Type check and DbC integration would require significant work, I guess. > If you say so, it is. > > How about simple in{}, out{} block? I expect it's much simpler. > Injecting in{} and out{} block code to before/after execute() something > like this. > If execute() is replaceable as before, then we may have two execute() > for production and development. There will be zero performance cost > hopefully. > > Regards, > > -- > Yasuo Ohgaki > yohgaki@ohgaki.net >