Derick,
How is it different from having both options? Given enough time
isn't it exactly the same thing? Argument verification should not be
a customizable feature.
Collecting the info (for documentation purposes and reflection) is
something else and I think that's fine - and then the only question
that remains is the syntax (which IIRC includes modifiers for
strict/weak that we should probably clean up).
Zeev
At 21:38 11/08/2010, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> So I'd propose doing the following:
>
> 1. Moving parameter typing to a feature branch (by branching
current trunk and
> then rolling back the typing part in the trunk).
> 2. Starting 5.4 alpha process after that basing on trunk.
>
> Any objections to this?
A little bit; yes. There is indeed 0 consensus for having the strict
typehints. However, instead of removing it altogether, and instead
answering every mail in this thread :P, I wrote/am writing a patch that
removes the hard type checks. It however keeps the parsed structures and
reflection API for it. In this sense, they're actually real hints. The
patch also adds a mechanism similariy to the zend_error_cb mechanism so
that extensions could override the argument type checking. As my use
case for strict checking is development I'd be happy to just move the
hard checks into an extension. I could even offer a soft check. It also
allows some type inference which might be useful for webservice
introspecition generation. I am sure SOAP might have some benefit of
this, and I know that at least pecl/dbus does. The patch is attached,
but not ready (I haven't remove the hard checks yet because things got
busy at work).
Derick
--
http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
