Hi Rowan, > On 14 Jan 2015, at 15:45, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Perhaps it would be clearer if the RFC (and the documentation, if this is > accepted) referred to the non-strict as something other than "weak". It makes > it sound like only a weak check will be performed, and some values of the > "wrong" type will be allowed through, when in reality you will always get > exactly the type asked for. > > Maybe "coercive type-checking" would more accurately reflect the > functionality?
Yeah, that’s an issue I’m aware of, “type checking" would suggest it merely “checks”, but it actually has the same implicit conversion behaviour used by extension and built-in PHP functions. I’m not sure what to call it. I don’t really think “coercive type-checking” is particularly better. Anyone who has a suggestion for a name, please feel free to offer it. Thanks. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
