Re: Reviving scalar type hints

Hi! > So let's talk compromise. > Would leaving internal functions out of the picture at this stage > change you mind? This is effectively what Hack does, internal > functions are explicitly marked as "coercible". For me, the option that makes users remember which functions are internal and which are not, because they work radically different (and I don't mean in some small detail, I mean up to a complete failure if I get it wrong) is not something I'd really like. > Would a tri-state option make sense? ('weak-all', > 'strict-user/weak-internal', 'strict-all') > How do we get from here to something you would like? Two semantics in the same language are bad enough. Three, IMHO, is just a no go, dealing with code having three different semantics would be completely impossible. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com