On 02/02/15 08:53, Matteo Beccati wrote:
>> I think v0.1 had pretty good chances to get accepted, but I’m not so
>> sure about anything that followed.
>> I’m definitely -1 on declare(strict).
>
> I agree. I understand that someone might prefer strict typing, but
> declare() seems so different from
Hi Andrey,
> On 2 Feb 2015, at 08:55, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> Hi Dmitry,
>>
>>> On 2 Feb 2015, at 07:02, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>>>
>>> As I already told, in my opinion, version 0.1 was the perfect solution that
>>> fit into
what about giving several voting options? yes/no for scalar type hints and
yes/no for declare-strict
Regards
Thomas
Michael Wallner schrieb am 2. Feb 2015 09:49:
>
>> On 02 02 2015, at 00:49, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>
>> Good evening,
>>
>> The RFC has been updated to cover return types, sinc
Hi Andrea,
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> Hi Andrey,
>
>> On 2 Feb 2015, at 08:55, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>
On 2 Feb 2015, at 07:02, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
As I alread
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> > On 2 Feb 2015, at 07:02, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> >
> > As I already told, in my opinion, version 0.1 was the perfect solution
> that
> > fit into PHP semantic very well.
>
> I don't like the original. Weak types work to a de
Hello Andrea,
On 02.02.15 00:49, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> The RFC has been updated to cover return types, since Levi’s Return Types RFC
> has passed. The patch is a work in progress: it works, but lacks tests for
> return types.
>
> Version 0.3 of the RFC can be found here:
> https://wiki.php.ne
Hi Markus,
> On 2 Feb 2015, at 14:25, Markus Fischer wrote:
>
> - Since consensus on the strict mode does part the community (or, the
> greater community also outside @internals) my impression is that the
> current best way to move forward would be
>
> - get the rfc to only go for weak types fo
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Markus,
>
>> On 2 Feb 2015, at 14:25, Markus Fischer wrote:
>>
>> - Since consensus on the strict mode does part the community (or, the
>> greater community also outside @internals) my impression is that the
>> current best way to mov
Hi Dmitry,
> On 2 Feb 2015, at 09:24, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
> > Will we able to call the same function using weak
> > type hinting from on file and with strict from the other?
>
> Yes, for the parameter type hints anyway. That means that strict and weak
> code is interoperable without enforci
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> As I already told, in my opinion, version 0.1 was the perfect solution that
> fit into PHP semantic very well.
>
> declare(strict_types=1); - is really weird solution.
> It changes type hinting behavior per file scope, so, just to try strict
> type hinti
Hey Derick,
> On 2 Feb 2015, at 16:35, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>> As I already told, in my opinion, version 0.1 was the perfect solution that
>> fit into PHP semantic very well.
>>
>> declare(strict_types=1); - is really weird solution.
>> It change
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Good evening,
>
> The RFC has been updated to cover return types, since Levi’s Return Types RFC
> has passed. The patch is a work in progress: it works, but lacks tests for
> return types.
>
> Version 0.3 of the RFC can be found here:
> htt
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hey Derick,
>
>> On 2 Feb 2015, at 16:35, Derick Rethans wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>>
>>> As I already told, in my opinion, version 0.1 was the perfect solution that
>>> fit into PHP semantic very well.
>>>
>>
Hi Matthew,
> On 2 Feb 2015, at 16:45, Matthew Leverton wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> Good evening,
>>
>> The RFC has been updated to cover return types, since Levi’s Return Types
>> RFC has passed. The patch is a work in progress: it works, but lacks test
Hi Andrey,
> On 2 Feb 2015, at 16:48, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>
> As already said, we're just going around in circles at this point, but
> a migration issue?
>
> Whatever code using the scalar type hints should be *new* code in
> userland.
Why not existing userland code? If only new code adds ty
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
>
>> On 2 Feb 2015, at 16:48, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>
>> As already said, we're just going around in circles at this point, but
>> a migration issue?
>>
>> Whatever code using the scalar type hints should be *new* code in
>>
Hi Andrey,
> On 2 Feb 2015, at 16:57, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> Hi Andrey,
>>
>>> On 2 Feb 2015, at 16:48, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>>
>>> As already said, we're just going around in circles at this point, but
>>> a migration issue?
>>>
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 05:00:08PM +, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
> ...
Just to give thanks to Andrea on persisting with a highly contentious RFC, one
that has defeated several others over the years. I hope that we will end up with
something acceptable to most and will be able to finally
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
>
>> On 2 Feb 2015, at 16:57, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>> Hi Andrey,
>>>
On 2 Feb 2015, at 16:48, Andrey Andreev wrote:
As already said, we're just going aro
So, one of the advantages of strict type hinting is the ability to catch
potential errors.
For example when we pass 67 to setBody(string $message).
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> > On 2 Feb 2015, at 09:24, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> >
> > > W
Hi Dmitry,
> On 2 Feb 2015, at 18:22, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
> So, one of the advantages of strict type hinting is the ability to catch
> potential errors.
> For example when we pass 67 to setBody(string $message).
Yes, that sort of thing is easily caught by strict type checks. They’re also
a
2015-02-02 21:12 GMT+02:00 Andrea Faulds :
> Hi Dmitry,
>
>> On 2 Feb 2015, at 18:22, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>>
>> So, one of the advantages of strict type hinting is the ability to catch
>> potential errors.
>> For example when we pass 67 to setBody(string $message).
>
> Yes, that sort of thing is
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> > On 2 Feb 2015, at 18:22, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> >
> > So, one of the advantages of strict type hinting is the ability to catch
> potential errors.
> > For example when we pass 67 to setBody(string $message).
>
> Yes, that s
Hi Dmitry,
> On 2 Feb 2015, at 19:26, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
> Agree. Strict type checks are simple and may be implemented more efficient.
> But in case we have to support both - weak and strict, this won't make any
> advantage.
I think this still works even if we support both. The RFC’s appro
Hey everyone,
> On 2 Feb 2015, at 16:50, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> The implementation does work for testing. I still need to write tests for
> return types but they seem to work. Parameter types are fully-working,
> though, and they have extensive tests, so I know they’re working fine and you
Hi Andrea,
In you proposal you disable declaration of classes with names, that may be
used for scalar type hints - Int, Float, ...
What do you think about using only lowercase type names for scalar type
hints?
In this case we won't have to introduce any limitations.
function foo(int $a) // expe
Am 04.02.2015 um 06:44 schrieb Dmitry Stogov:
> What do you think about using only lowercase type names for scalar type
> hints? In this case we won't have to introduce any limitations.
This would be inconsistent with the rest of PHP being case-insensitive
and only lead to confusion.
--
PHP I
Hi Dmitry and Sebastian,
> On 4 Feb 2015, at 05:49, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
>
> Am 04.02.2015 um 06:44 schrieb Dmitry Stogov:
>> What do you think about using only lowercase type names for scalar type
>> hints? In this case we won't have to introduce any limitations.
>
> This would be inconsi
On 2 February 2015 17:09:30 GMT, Alain Williams wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 05:00:08PM +, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> Hi Andrey,
>> ...
>
>Just to give thanks to Andrea on persisting with a highly contentious
>RFC, one
>that has defeated several others over the years. I hope that we will
>end
>
> On 02 Feb 2015, at 17:35 , Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>> As I already told, in my opinion, version 0.1 was the perfect solution that
>> fit into PHP semantic very well.
>>
>> declare(strict_types=1); - is really weird solution.
>> It changes type h
201 - 230 of 230 matches
Mail list logo
