On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 20:25, Levi Morrison via internals <
internals@lists.php.net> wrote:
>
> In summary:
> - Checked at run-time (and probably also compile-time when possible):
> reified generics.
> - Checked only at compile-time and thrown away at run-time: erased
> generics.
> - Not checked
Hi all
To make myself clear, since I realise I used a confusing term in the subject of
my mail. What I'm proposing is runtime-erased generics, the way Matthew
describes them: PHP completely ignores them during runtime, and wouldn't do
anything with them during compile time. It's up to third
I think the addition of runtime-erased generics would be a good thing for the
language.
I don’t think PHP should perform any sort of checking of generic parameters at
compile time. No other equivalent interpreter performs those compile-time
checks, and it’s also *very* complex — since adding
> On Sep 17, 2020, at 3:25 PM, Levi Morrison
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:00 PM Matthew Brown
>> wrote:
On Sep 17, 2020, at 1:28 PM, Brent Roose wrote:
>>> But I don't want to get stuck on phrasing, if elidiing is the right term as
>>> Larry suggests, let's go with
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:00 PM Matthew Brown wrote:
> > On Sep 17, 2020, at 1:28 PM, Brent Roose wrote:
> > But I don't want to get stuck on phrasing, if elidiing is the right term as
> > Larry suggests, let's go with it!
>
> No, the correct term is “type erasure”:
>
> On Sep 17, 2020, at 1:28 PM, Brent Roose wrote:
>
> But I don't want to get stuck on phrasing, if elidiing is the right term as
> Larry suggests, let's go with it!
No, the correct term is “type erasure”:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_erasure
Its opposite is called reification:
Hi Ilija
> On 17 Sep 2020, at 19:01, Ilija Tovilo wrote:
>
> Hi Brent
>
>> Today I'd like to hear your thoughts on what might be a controversial topic,
>> though I think it's worth having this discussion. I want to make the case
>> for adding generic syntax, without actually enforing any
Hi Matthew and Larry
> On 17 Sep 2020, at 18:21, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020, at 10:21 AM, Matthew Brown wrote:
>> Quick thing before I get into my own reaction:
>>
>> Transpiling is normally thought of as the process of converting one
>> language into another. Tools like
Hi George
Thanks for the reply!
> On 17 Sep 2020, at 14:34, G. P. B. wrote:
>
> Hello Brent,
>
> I'm going to make the argument I've already done on Reddit once [1], IMHO
> TypeScript is just a nicer pipeline for a preprocessor and a static
> analyser and not a language per say.
>
> Let me
Hi Brent
> Today I'd like to hear your thoughts on what might be a controversial topic,
> though I think it's worth having this discussion. I want to make the case for
> adding generic syntax, without actually enforing any additional type checks
> at runtime. Please hear me out.
I think
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020, at 10:21 AM, Matthew Brown wrote:
> Quick thing before I get into my own reaction:
>
> Transpiling is normally thought of as the process of converting one
> language into another. Tools like Babel transpile TypeScript to JavaScript.
>
> What's being proposed here (AFAICT)
Quick thing before I get into my own reaction:
Transpiling is normally thought of as the process of converting one
language into another. Tools like Babel transpile TypeScript to JavaScript.
What's being proposed here (AFAICT) is type erasure – the generic type
information would be erased during
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 13:33, Brent Roose wrote:
> Hello internals
>
> Today I'd like to hear your thoughts on what might be a controversial
> topic, though I think it's worth having this discussion. I want to make the
> case for adding generic syntax, without actually enforing any additional
>
Hello internals
Today I'd like to hear your thoughts on what might be a controversial topic,
though I think it's worth having this discussion. I want to make the case for
adding generic syntax, without actually enforing any additional type checks at
runtime. Please hear me out.
We've been
14 matches
Mail list logo
