On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > At 22:50 11/08/2010, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote: >> > Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >> >> >> >> +1, I think that's the most sensible solution for now that would allow >> >> us to proceed with 5.4, something we all seem to be in agreement on. >> > >> > A slight aside here, as I have not be bothering about what HAS been >> > implemented typing wise ... A large section of the code a work with >> > passes a >> > range of data to functions and classes. If the function gets an integer >> > it >> > looks up the record with that id, an array assumes the data is already >> > loaded, and perhaps a string value defines that a new record of that >> > name is >> > to be created. So I don't want the parameters passed to be tied to a >> > single >> > type. Is THAT affected by any of the current typing actions? >> >> both suggested type-hinting strategies are optional. >> so, you, as developer, are free to not use type-hinting and accept any >> data you like > > Alexey, > > It's been explained countless times why this is WRONG. > Please read the archives. > If you have and you disagree with it, please take it as an axiom - a feature > being 'optional' does not take away from any confusion or complexity > associated with it. It's been a design guideline in PHP from the get go, > we're not going to give up on it now.
You misunderstood my comment. Lester asked if he can still have his APIs without type-hinting and I told him that he can. That's all We're not talking about complexities of understanding -- Alexey Zakhlestin http://www.milkfarmsoft.com/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
