---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: troels knak-nielsen <troel...@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Type hinting - Request for Discussion To: Lukas Kahwe Smith <m...@pooteeweet.org>
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith<m...@pooteeweet.org> wrote: > right .. lets not forget the original goal (though it hasnt been perfectly > defined) Good point, clarifying the goal should probably have been done long time ago. I think that some of the reason why this discussion has fragmented and begun to go sour, is that it started with an implementation proposal - not with a problem to be solved. This makes it very hard to agree on anything or even to have a meaningful discussion. So you suggest the following goals: Move common validation code out of the function body in order to * reduce code * increase readability * enable IDE's to be even smarter. That sounds like a good proposal. Now, static typing is one possible solution to that. Contracts is another. I like contracts better, since they focus on the interface rather than on the implementation. I think this is much more in lieu with php's type system. I do agree that moving imperative code into the signature complicates matters and looks rather messy. I don't think that's the case as per my initial proposal however. Now, static typing does provide one benefit over a strictly run-time contract. It enables a more meaningful static analysis of the code. This translates into smarter IDE's and enables certain transformations of source code (Eg. automated refactoring). But they also come at a cost in flexibility, makes the language more verbose and even then, it will still only be a partial solution. Personally I just don't think this price is worth it, just to get smarter IDE's. -- troels -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
