Re: [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints

On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: > Hi, > >> On 7 Feb 2015, at 22:03, Pavel Kouřil <pajousek@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Yeah, but you say in the RFC that "With this approach, an argument is >> only accepted if its type is exactly the same as the parameter." when >> speaking about C# and Java - which is NOT true. > > C# and Java aren’t really considered weakly-typed. Technically they’re not “fully > strict” I guess, but if you were to give example of strictly-typed languages, you’d probably > include C# and Java in that list - so I did. C# and Java definitely aren't weakly typed. I never said they are though? Also, is there a real difference between strict and strong? Because C# refers to itself as a strongly typed, but you use "strict typing" everytime you speak about strong typing? > > It might be somewhat misleading. Really, what’s “weak” and what’s “strict” is > rather subjective: C is sometimes considered weak, sometimes strict. I’d say it’s more > “weak” because all sorts of definitely wrong conversions are allowed implicitly and merely > generate warnings. C# and Java are more careful here, so I’d say they’re “strict” even > though I suppose they do have a degree of weak typing. > >> Also, there's no need to mention >> float -> int, because that one is definitely wrong. But for the int >> (and long, etc) -> float (and double) - how do the languages you >> mentioned in the RFC handle that conversion? > > From Microsoft’s documentation that you linked, it sounds like they just always convert and > never error, so you’d get data loss in some cases (just like you do in PHP with an explicit cast). > > I am familiar with other languages, I just disagree with their approach. > It's not somewhat misleading, it's 100% misleading - because you state that it acts like in Java and C#, but it doesn't. Also, are there any strongly typed language that implement strong/strict typing the way you want to do it in PHP? >> And as I said myself >> multiple times in the past, the declare syntax IS just ugly (and >> changing how code works by writing one line is an ugly principle as >> well, IMHO). :( > > I prefer this approach to the inconsistency the other approaches suggested thus far lead to. > The thing is, you cannot please everyone. When you try to please anyone, you usally end up with something that has flaws for everyone to some degree. :(