And here's a thought: I could structure the RFC so that the voting will
have 3 choices: Yes with strong/weak differentiation, yes without
strong/weak, or no. However, the voting RFC doesn't cover how the tally
should be calculated in such a circumstance. For example, let's say we had
8 votes yes with differentiation, 2 votes yes without differentiation, and
5 votes no. If we tally the two "yes" columns, it's 10 - 5, which would be
the required 2/3 majority. However, how would we calculate the mandate on
differentiation? Among those who voted yes, there's a clear 8 - 2 (80%)
majority in favor of it. But if you count the no votes as being no to
differentiation and add them to the total, it suddenly becomes 8 - 7, which
falls short of the 2/3 majority. An argument could be made that these
people who voted no would not want differentiation, but another argument
could be made that; while they don't like the idea, if it does happen
they'd rather have it differentiated than not. In other words, determining
voter intent from that group would be difficult and thus only tallying
among the yes votes would make sense. Both arguments would have about
equal merit I think
The voting RFC does allow for different "options" in the vote, but it does
not elaborate on this. We could break the "no" group into two as well,
though that could make things a bit too confusing.
Since there's presently no clear procedure on this (at least none that I'm
aware of), what are your thoughts on this? I do believe the two should be
in the same vote since they're pretty integral to one another, but I'm not
sure how best to do that while maintaining accurate results without making
it too complicated.
--Kris
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @Simon Agreed. That's pretty much what I'm thinking it should look like.
>
> With booleans, I think you have a good point. If 1 or 0 is passed to a
> bool, I'd say that should be fine without an error. If you were to pass a
> 2, though (you insolent bastard!), then it would throw the error.
>
>
> I think we're getting pretty close to having enough to write an RFC for
> this. I'll go ahead and create one after a little more discussion goes
> around.
>
> --Kris
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Simon Schick <
> simonsimc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Kris
>>
>> I don't think we have to care about scripts that are written right now if
>> we're talking about throwing an E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR or E_WARNING because
>> this feature is completely new. But I like the idea to have all type-hint
>> failures ending up the same way.
>>
>> I personally would keep the error-messages for classes and arrays as they
>> are right now and do the same error in case the given value is not
>> compatible to the expected type.
>> Not compatible means that data gets lost after converting the data into
>> the other data-type.
>>
>> Lets have an example:
>>
>> function foo(integer $i) {
>> // do something
>> }
>>
>> foo(true); // Even if Boolean is a lower type than int, it can be easily
>> casted to an int. It's equivalent to 1.
>> foo("1"); // wont throw an error because the transformation into an
>> integer is loose-less
>> foo(2.5); // Throws an E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR because its a float, but an
>> integer is required here.
>> foo("horse"); // Throws an E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR because if you transform
>> "horse" into a float, it's 1 and that's not equal to the string anymore.
>>
>> I personally would treat float - int miss matches the same way as all
>> other stuff, because it cannot be converted loose-less.
>>
>> And if the Object-cast-stuff comes through, we have to think about this
>> in addition:
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/object_cast_magic
>>
>> class MyInteger {
>> public function __castTo(string $type) {
>> if ($type === "integer")
>> return 5;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> function foo(integer $i) {
>> // do something
>> }
>>
>> foo(new MyInteger()); // Even if this is an object - it's cast-able to
>> an integer and therefore should be valid
>>
>> But this is just in case the RFC gets through ;) We don't have to think
>> that much about it now - just keep it in mind.
>>
>> Bye
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> 2012/2/29 Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> Now that I think of it, this would probably be a good argument for
>>> differentiating between strong and weak. Looking back to my previous
>>> comment, it probably would be best to have it behave the same regardless
>>> of
>>> what the incompatible type is. But in the case where a float might sneak
>>> its way into an int, the developer might decide that going with a weak
>>> type
>>> would make it more flexible (though if it was me, I'd just do a round or
>>> leave it a mixed type lol).
>>>
>>> --Kris
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > @Richard I think you made a very good point. Should we treat a float
>>> =>
>>> > int mismatch the same as we would a string => int mismatch, or should
>>> the
>>> > former fail more gracefully? I can see good arguments for both.
>>> >
>>> > --Kris
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Lynch <c...@l-i-e.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Tue, February 28, 2012 5:17 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Some cases I would find interesting to be explained:
>>> >>
>>> >> (using 'streak' for strong and/or weak, feel free to separate the two)
>>> >>
>>> >> streak int $i = 123.456; //Common idiom for floor()
>>> >> streak int $i = "123.456"; //In contrast to previous
>>> >> streak int $i = "1 "; //value="1 " is ridiculously common HTML
>>> >>
>>> >> It's all well and good to say that any loss of data is "bad" and to
>>> >> raise some E_* for it, but there are some idioms so common that feel
>>> >> "wrong" as I consider them...
>>> >>
>>> >> If everyone "for" the new type hinting/forcing can reach consensus on
>>> >> these sorts of cases, it would help clarify any RFCs a bit, I think
>>> >>
>>> >> wrt E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR vs E_WARNING
>>> >>
>>> >> If current type hinting raises E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR, I have no
>>> >> objection to following that lead, with the explicit caveat that a
>>> >> change to the existing type-hinting to E_WARNING, as unlikely as that
>>> >> seems, would pull the new "streak" with it.
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't even object to using E_ERROR for the "strong" variant, if that
>>> >> passes review, really, since "strong" is, errr, strong. :-)
>>> >>
>>> >> Anybody who doesn't like the E_* can re-define them in a custom error
>>> >> handler anyway, though allowing PHP to continue after E_ERROR is like
>>> >> playing russian roulette...
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> brain cancer update:
>>> >> http://richardlynch.blogspot.com/search/label/brain%20tumor
>>> >> Donate:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FS9NLTNEEKWBE
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>>> >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
