2016-10-24 8:45 GMT+02:00 Michael Morris <tendo...@gmail.com>: > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Michał Brzuchalski < > mic...@brzuchalski.com> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to initiate discussion for Object typehint RFC > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/object-typehint > > > > This feature is developed to provide missing functionality which is > needed > > and quite easy to introduce. > > There are many people which I've talked about the benefits of this > > functionality. > > > > For those who doesn't like the idea and think they won't need neither use > > it rather than just saying 'no' they > > please say why other people who want to use that parameter type are > wrong, > > for wanting to do that. > > > > > Type hinting, along with the assert statement, provide a means to establish > expectations for a methods. It's part of a coding paradigm known as 'design > by contract' and it's critical for large teams and projects that are used > among multiple teams. >
assert statement cannot be defined in method declaration, using typehiunt does Anything inside a method can do the same - that's right, but none of those assert and even is_object cannot be in method declaration, that's why it cannot be inherited by sub-classes and that is why `object` typehuiint is more powerfull Additionally it more clear to read method declaration with static analysers and detect abnormal usage simply by static analysis. It's impossible with assertions! > > Checking to see if a variable is an object in no way provides a real test > of what can be done with it. Can it be iterated on? Probably, but not > always. Does a method exist on the object? No way to know without further > testing. > > Defining what an object can do is the reason interfaces exist. This is also > why objects are allowed to implement multiple interfaces, so that they can > be labeled according to all the roles they can fulfill. > There are usage of object variables described in RFC which doesn't need any behavior from an object, they simply need variable to be object, and that's all, thats the real world use cases described in RFC. Sorry but your argumentation doesn't convince me to not introduce described feature. > My principle worry with this RFC is it encourages an anti-pattern - not > using interfaces and thereby not clearly labeling what objects can and > cannot do. > There are examples of use cases. Speaking of pattern the DI pattern is designed to provide services, they doesn't need to implement any specific interface. There was a question earlier what about services - they need to implement specific behaviour - but that's not true, you do not expect in DI pattern any service need to implement anything, you simply expect only services, which do need to be objects, and that is all the case. You cannot type hint against Service, Closure etc, because you don't know in DI what kind of service it is and that's not the point of DI The real point of DI is to provide service whatever it is, and that's why object type is for. > The one situation this might be useful requires additional testing anyway - > that would be a method that will receive objects of one or more classes > that don't have a common interface and rewriting the class to add the > desired interface isn't viable (for example, the objects come from > different packages). In that event though type hinting for an object is > only going to be the first step in determining if the code state is sane, > you'll also need to check if the object belongs to one of the several > classes the code can work with. This gets even hairier when dealing with a > collection of objects. I wrote this generic assertion for Drupal 8. > > https://api.drupal.org/api/drupal/core%21lib%21Drupal% > 21Component%21Assertion%21Inspector.php/function/Inspector%3A% > 3AassertAllObjects/8.2.x > You're missing is_object on $member in foreach in your implementation and it won't be even needed if there where object type hint. > In your own code you'll likely need to do something similar with your > argument. Incidentally, these sorts of tests, which can only fail if the > code is wrong, are what assert statements are to be used for, not > exceptions. This way the check for correct objects can be turned off in > production to avoid the cpu overhead of the test (assuming your function > doesn't need to switch to different branches depending on the exact object > used). > > In summary, -1 to this as it encourages bad code writing. > -- regards / pozdrawiam, -- Michał Brzuchalski about.me/brzuchal brzuchalski.com
