Re: [RFC DISCUSSION] var_type

On 6/26/2016 12:31 PM, Dan Ackroyd wrote: > Hi Richard, > Hi Dan! On 6/26/2016 12:31 PM, Dan Ackroyd wrote: > As other noted elsewhere by others, the name of the function is > slightly misleading for this case: > > var_type(1 + 1); > > However I don't have a better suggestion. > The name comes from Sara from the original typeof() discussion thread. I understand the arguments of the people but as I already explained on Reddit, the usage of var_type() on expressions like the above is nothing anyone would ever do, especially if the TYPE_INT constant is exposed in userland. One would only use it to get the type of the value that is currently stored in a variable of which the type is unknown. vat_type() or value_type() could be good choices as function name. However, both would introduce new prefixes and I actually do not think that this is a good idea because it will require people to remember more and more and more prefixes which makes no sense. It is a declared goal of this RFC to make is simpler for developers to find what the need (aided by their IDE and brain). Remembering that you can get additional information about a variable (its value, type, ...) via the super old var_* prefix is definitely a good thing, shows visions, and an overall goal. Note that I plan to provide a var_info() function in my next RFC that builds upon this. TL;DR I still like Sara's suggestion and intend to keep it. On 6/26/2016 12:31 PM, Dan Ackroyd wrote: > From the second half of the RFC: > >> const TYPE_FALSE = 'false'; >> const TYPE_TRUE = 'true'; > > Although as an implementation detail they are present in the engine, > those aren't types in userland. i.e. you can't do > > function foo(true $i_only_accept_true) {} > Yes, I also struggled to actually expose them (and write a comment for them). I searched some code bases and found many usages of literal true and false, this convinced me that there is a need for them. Introduction of true and false as type declarations was also discussed and proposed multiple times (did not make as of yet though). I am definitely open to removing them again! Should we add a third poll? -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger

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