Re: [RFC] Type hints
| From: | Andi Gutmans | Date: | Tue, 11 May 2004 12:23:36 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Type hints | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-9810@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
At 11:44 AM 5/11/2004 +0200, Timm Friebe wrote:
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)
Nope, why would it work? If we make the type hint strict (which I think we should) then you can't define it to NULL.
Doing so would be kind of inconsistent.
Andi