> I see no reason
why those who want 'strict' can't have that as a pecl module to replace
'lax' operations.
Simple, the most robust implementation is inferior to internal support.
Making a call to this:
function (int $some, double $other) {
}
behave as if Zend is strict is quite easy, what is difficult is:
class Foo {
public function bar(int $some) {
}
}
class Qux extends Foo {
public function bar(double $some) {
}
}
Enforcing our current rules is so hard you might as well call it impossible.
TL;DR because internal support is much much much better, in every possible
way
Cheers
Joe
Even if you managed it, it would not be robust, in any reasonable opinion.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote:
> With the discussion on adding http extension by default and not now
> having other key extensions in a normal build I'm looking at what I NEED
> and what I can get away without. On the current PHP7 test build I do not
> have mysqlnd installed as I don't use mysql, but I can't make the mysql
> section available in a second php-fpm instance becuase I can't add
> mysqlnd as a shared module.
>
> Just what is the current state on what is 'required' and what is still
> optional. I will return to banging on about breaking up php-src so that
> one CAN get away with building individual modules and I see no reason
> why those who want 'strict' can't have that as a pecl module to replace
> 'lax' operations.
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -----------------------------
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
