Re: [RFC DISCUSSION] typeof

It would be beneficial to not reduce this to stringly-typed programmer (again), as Dan mentioned. Returning something like a ReflectionType instance (which then implements __toString) would be much simpler, efficient and easy to use. Marco Pivetta http://twitter.com/Ocramius http://ocramius.github.com/ On 4 June 2016 at 18:05, Fleshgrinder <php@fleshgrinder.com> wrote: > On 6/4/2016 4:34 PM, Dan Ackroyd wrote: > > Hello FG, > > > > Having a standard way to get the type of a variable, that matches the > > name of how it appears in PHP is a good idea. > > > > The 'extended' parameter is not such a good idea, for various reasons > > but mainly because it's simpler for people to call is_callable() as > > well as typeof, rather than having to interpret the extended string to > > tell if a string represents a callable. > > > > The same is true for floats; it is easier for people to call > > is_infinite or is_nan rather than searching inside a string for > > 'infinite' or 'invalid'. > > > > cheers > > Dan > > > > Hi Dan, > > many thanks for your feedback. This is definitely NOT the purpose of the > extended mode, and I tried to emphasize this in the RFC. I also think it > would be very bad to introduce anything that would compete with any of > the existing is_* functions. It is also the reason why the strings are > very verbose and human readable: they are meant for debug and error > messages. > > // complicated code ... > // error branch {{{ > > $type = typeof($v, true); > throw new Ex('Expected Foo but got ' . $type); > > // }}} > // complicated code ... > > This matches the main usage -- according to my research -- of the > existing gettype() function in userland software. :) > > -- > Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger > >