Re: Re: [RFC] [PRE-VOTE] Union types

On 6/2/2016 7:37 PM, Bob Weinand wrote: > Hey, > > I think this is more of a presentation problem. > As you say, there's not much a better way to do that. > > It's basically our weak casting rules, just applied to the most lossless type available. > It's out weak casting rules which are so complex; the RFCs combination is not particularly > complex. > It needs to cover everything, but it's particularly important for the trivial cases to be > handled here. Would be quite WTF if you could not pass a float to something accepting int (as one of > its types). > > I'd welcome every suggestion to make the rules look less scary, because they actually > aren't. > > Bob > Don't you think this matrix would be a better presentation and simpler? |--------|--------|--------|--------| | type | #1 | #2 | #3 | |--------|--------|--------|--------| | bool | string | int | | | int | string | float | bool | | float | string | int | bool | | object | string | | | | string | float | int | bool | |--------|--------|--------|--------| Everything else is a TypeError. Note that I try string first all the time. Simply because it makes no difference for PHP afterwards, e.g.: function f(string|int $a) { if ($a == 1) echo 'foo'; } f(true); // true ~> '1' ~> 1 = foo Even if the change I applied is not intelligent and is not a good idea (haven't thought about it deeply), the presentation as a table should help a lot. -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc