> If there were > only two options left on earth, strict typing and strict+auto-conversion, > I'd vote for going with just strict.
Completely agree. I'm against strict approach, but I would prefer strict to "strict+auto-conversion". I see a sense in weak typehints. I see a lesser sense in strict. And I see lesser lesser sense in combining the two. And, for the record: I vote for keeping the status quo regarding typehints. If this feature causes so much debate, why not leave it until better times and concentrate on other ones? I hope this comment will be of interest in the context of "What would be interesting to see is what people think of Derick's latest proposal allowing both the strict typechecking and the more sensible "weak typing". I am a PHP end-user so I am one of the people, too. 2010/8/12 Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com>: > At 04:02 12/08/2010, Josh Davis wrote: >> >> What would be interesting to see is what people think of Derick's >> latest proposal allowing both the strict typechecking and the more >> sensible "weak typing" > > There's nothing new about it, it's been on the table for around half a year > now. Everyone who opposes strict typing on grounds that it's an alien > feature to PHP(*) doesn't see any advantages in this suggestion, as > everything that's bad in strict typing remains on the table. If there were > only two options left on earth, strict typing and strict+auto-conversion, > I'd vote for going with just strict. > > Zeev > > (*) > <http://wiki.php.net/rfc/typecheckingstrictandweak>http://wiki.php.net/rfc/typecheckingstrictandweak > - 'Why is strict type checking problematic' > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- С уважением, Виктор -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
