Re: [RFC] Type hints

On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 18:16, Andi Gutmans wrote: > I think it's hard to put closure on this type hints issue. [...] > As no good syntax has been found for the less common case of allowing > NULL's, I think the best solution for now is not to allow null in the > regular type hint syntax, and have people who want to allow NULL's not use > type hints at all (in any case, they need to manually check their parameter > so they'll do one more manual check). Will this affect optional arguments? I.e., will the following still work? class UserClass { public static function forName($name, ClassLoader $c= NULL) { // ... } } $works= UserClass::forName('MySQLConnection'); (not passing any value for the optional parameter) vs. $fails= UserClass::forName('MySQLConnection', NULL); (passing NULL as "value" for the optional parameter) - Timm