On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 12:51 -0500, Sam Barrow wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 12:48 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 12:41 -0500, Sam Barrow wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 12:37 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 18:23 +0100, Pierre wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 4, 2008 6:20 PM, Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > Hello Pierre,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > we never accepted this as a pro argument. Infact we often saw the
> > > > > > necessaity to highlight something is optional to vote against it.
> > > > > > We do this
> > > > > > for a reason. That is we only want to support mainstream features.
> > > > >
> > > > > My point of view is that this feature should be a mainstream feature.
> > > > > To make it optional was to lower the issues for those who don't care
> > > > > about argument strictness. We did not give them this choice for the OO
> > > > > strictness.
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, optionally inclusion of type hinting for functions/methods can
> > > > only be a boon to code quality and readability. IMHO when a type hint is
> > > > provided and a parameter doesn't match the type hint then I think a
> > > > fatal error should occur. This forces the user of the function that has
> > > > type hinting to ensure their data is of the correct type. This prevents
> > > > accidental wrong data conversion. However, I see the other side of the
> > > > coin too where automatic type conversion could be desirable also.
> > > > Perhaps a mixed solution would be viable?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't think conversion would make sense here, as PHP will
> > > automatically convert the variable before you use it anyway. Hinting
> > > will prevent mistakes, conversion will just try to ignore them, which is
> > > what PHP does already.
> >
> > I think that depends on what I do with the variable. PHP doesn't know
> > how I intend to use it, and if I know I want an int and I don't want to
> > test for browserland garbage in my variable everytime the function is
> > called, then an automatic type conversion to int for my function can
> > make perfect sense. Yes, I could force the developer using my function
> > to cast the parameter as an int, but I'm certain conversion in the
> > engine without a userland cast is faster, and it makes it more
> > convenient to the consumer of my function since they can still treat it
> > like a classic function.
>
> Yes, but whatever you do with it (echo, store in db, etc.) PHP will
> perform its default conversion routine for the variable type. You have a
> point though, this is something that I've actually been debating for
> some time:
>
> function a(int $a, cast int $b) {
>
> }
>
> $a must be an int
> $b will be cast to an int
Yes, that makes more sense since it brings things in line with the
current semantics for array/object type hinting.
> I just think this is getting a little bit too complicated. Many people
> on here are resistant enough to scalar type hinting because they say
> it's confusing, they'll definitely be even more resistant to something
> like this.
It's funny sometimes the complaints about too complicated. I mean, if
people don't want to use a "complicated feature" then they shouldn't. I
don't think cutting the legs out from developers who want to use said
features is the solution. I mean we're all programmers around here... is
it really that complicated? Required paraneter types, automatic
parameter casting, and ad-hoc paramets types? :)
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
