Re: [PHP-DEV] Strict typing

[Ryan Panning]

Victor Bolshov wrote:
Having two similar syntaxes that work differently - would make the
situation even worse that it is now - I beleive. And I totally agree
with Rasmus - strict typed language mustnt be called PHP. (Just a poor
user's notice to all of you internals' geeks out there)
2010/8/11 Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com>:
Hi!

1. right now we *have* strict type checks for classes and arrays in the
   form of "classname" or "array"
Because classes and arrays were never intechangeable types and there was
never implicit or explicit conversion between SplRecursiveTreeIterator and
Zend_Pdf_Generator - it doesn't even make sense to suggest it. There always
was conversion between int and string or int and bool. These two things are
completely different.

2. the strict scalary type hint patch reuses this same syntax in the
   form of<type-name>  to do the same thing in function arguments
It's not a good thing. As I mentioned, primitive types and classes are very
different in their use cases and established patterns in PHP. Primitive
types are largely interchangeable, classes are not. (As for arrays, arrays
really should be a class by their usage patterns etc. but for historic
reasons... you know)

3. we have casting type hints in the rest of the code in the form of
   "(int)".
Just to make it simpler and less confusing, of course. It's nothing like
language having two features that look almost exactly the same but work in
different way, and using plenty of ()s is an added bonus for all Lisp fans
out there.

Some people don't like strict typehints, but the syntax as it currently
is regarding type hints is *consistent*. Now, to allow both strict and
casting hints, the logical step seems to be, to give the weak typehint
advocates their tool as well:
Calling something that works completely differently from all the established
patterns of PHP - like internal functions, etc. - "*consistent*" requires
totally new definition of this word.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php


Why do you think the two syntax's would be more complex!? IMO it is very 
clear what each would do.

The "strict type hinting", foo(int $var), is the same as the current 
"type hinting" for classes and arrays. It's required to be of that type, 
plain and simple.

The "weak type hinting", foo((int) $var), is the same as casting any 
other var, plain and simple. It will try to be casted to the specified 
type, with an error if it can't.

I'm willing to bet that if you bring this to the end users they will 
agree that it's easy to understand. Why try to figure out a new syntax 
for something that already exists!?

Now, changing the current implementation to "weak type hinting" would be 
more confusing. Because the current syntax used for type hinting 
classes/arrays is strict. If changed, you would need to specify that 
scaler types are weak but classnames are strict and now you have a WTH 
moment.

Not sure how much my opinion matters here though because I'm just an end 
user of PHP. IMO some of these debates should be brought to the end 
users. Who uses PHP in the end? The users. (And yes, I know the devs 
here do to..) What is one thing most companies go by? The customers come 
first. This "we know best" attitude here is gone way to far. Please 
don't just leave this here, because you'll hear it from the users in the 
end anyway. A good community is one who communicates. Thanks

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php