Re: [RFC DISCUSSION] typeof

On 6/4/2016 6:17 PM, Marco Pivetta wrote: > 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 > Hey Marco, not sure if I like that approach for a procedural function. If we would want that than it would be better to implement it as a named constructor of the actual class. class ReflectionType { public static function from(mixed $var): ReflectionType; } But anyways, it would result in changing the purpose of that class: > The ReflectionType class reports information about a function's > return type. I'd argue that we would need a completely new reflection class to handle this use case, e.g. ReflectionVariable. However, I cannot see that this is actually required while looking at the usage patterns of the existing gettype() function. The goal here is to continue supporting the existing mode of operation and its usage in userland while updating it to reflect the current state of the type system. Additionally, pretty much nobody uses it to determine the type of a variable but merely to include the resulting string in debug/error messages. The reflection class approach would mean that even more reflection code ends up in production code, another thing I consider questionable. -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger

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