Re: Reviving scalar type hints

> On 20 בפבר׳ 2015, at 16:55, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrote: > > verification and static analysis aren't enough? > Anthony, While IMHO they're not enough to warrant substantial deviation from PHP's behavior, this is a subjective question that others might answer differently. But there's also an objective issue. There's a serious question mark whether the type of hint - strict, coercive of otherwise can have any sort of implications on one's ability to conduct static analysis, JIT or AOT (I'm bringing those up again since they're closely related in terms of what you can or cannot infer). Now, I'll contend that even though I don't think we are, perhaps we're missing something. But at the very least it should be clear to the list there's serious doubt on whether there's any extra value there even if they do seem static analysis critical. If there is, it's likely to be very, very limited in scope. > That's not saying you should want to use statically typed for > everything. And nor would I support PHP moving to pure statically > typed (which is why the proposal I'm backing doesn't). We're on the same page here. But the kinds of static analysis benefits you seem to believe we can get from strict type hints would require that - strong typing, variable declarations, perhaps changes to casting rules - not just around that narrow interface between callers and callees. Thankfully that's not on the table. Thanks, Zeev