Hi Anthony,
I have been interested in this proposal for a while now. I'm not on internals,
but I have a question about your proposal.
1. declare(strict_types=1) (if used) is required to be the first
instruction in the file only. No other usages allowed.
How would this work with namespaces?
Chris,
I'll edit in the proposal, but you can check the tests in the mean time:
https://github.com/ircmaxell/php-src/blob/c8590799622ddb801360664d08ac5d7f4fa342df/Zend/tests/typehints/scalar_strict_declaration_placement_002.phpt
On 19/02/15 04:44, Dennis Birkholz wrote:
I just saw the reddit where you mention that v0.4 is practically
abandoned now, so I will just renounce my previous mail!
DO NOT USE OTHER CHANNELS!
With the large number of secondary channels the only place that
suggestions like that should be made is
De : Lester Caine [mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk]
On 19/02/15 04:44, Dennis Birkholz wrote:
I just saw the reddit where you mention that v0.4 is practically
abandoned now, so I will just renounce my previous mail!
DO NOT USE OTHER CHANNELS!
Agreed.
And the RFC was not abandoned at all. I
Dennis,
Will you consider to let the people vote on how to enable strict mode
like discussed in the v0.4 discussion? Like this here from the Reviving
scalar type hints thread?
I believe that RFCs should be opinionated. I dislike the recent trend
around having a lot of voting options as it
Francois and Lester (and all),
Please keep this thread on-topic. It should be for technical
discussions around this RFC only. If you have something non-technical
to discuss, please start a new topic.
Thanks
Anthony
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:58 AM, François Laupretre franc...@php.net wrote:
De
Hello Anthony,
Am 19.02.2015 um 14:01 schrieb Anthony Ferrara:
I believe that RFCs should be opinionated. I dislike the recent trend
around having a lot of voting options as it only complicates things
for the voter.
I just thought giving a vote on how to enable strict mode would enable a
few
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com
wrote:
Leigh,
Internal Functions Like ceil() Return Unexpected Types
My opinion is that functions should return sane types for their
intended purpose, and functions that do not should be fixed.
I agree 100%. I just
Robert,
you wrote: aliases are removed (integer and boolean)
what about the aliases real and double?
They were never part of Andrea's proposal. So they were never accepted anyway.
You wrote: behaviour of weak type checks: float - int *Only non-NaN floats
between PHP_INT_MIN and PHP_INT_MAX
On 18 February 2015 at 21:50, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
Static Analysis Is Possible With Weak Declarations
The advocacy of allowing `accepts_float(returns_int());` doesn't help
the cause of static analysers in strict mode.
Java does exactly this and is statically analyzable.
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Leigh lei...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like a way of enabling strict by
default, immutable to scripts so that users cannot be forced into this
mode, and lets the radicals and the weaklings* play together in
harmony.
For the rest of the RFC, I either
Leigh,
Internal Functions Like ceil() Return Unexpected Types
My opinion is that functions should return sane types for their
intended purpose, and functions that do not should be fixed.
I agree 100%. I just think that's outside the scope of this proposal.
Static Analysis Is Possible With
On 18 February 2015 at 20:44, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Internals,
Since the resignation of Andrea, the mixed-mode type hint (called
declaration in the proposal) proposal has been left abandoned.
Considering that the ending votes were 67/34 (66.3%) with several
no-votes
Albert,
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Albert Casademont Filella
albertcasadem...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anthony!
Thanks for bringing this up again. I am asking you the same I asked Andrea 2
weeks ago on Twitter: make it a triple option vote please. She didn't want
to do it, hope you do! This
Hi Anthony!
Thanks for bringing this up again. I am asking you the same I asked Andrea
2 weeks ago on Twitter: make it a triple option vote please. She didn't
want to do it, hope you do! This way you eliminate the neverending
discussion about weak vs strict, let the votes decide and see who
Am 18.02.2015 um 21:44 schrieb Anthony Ferrara:
Since the resignation of Andrea, the mixed-mode type hint (called
declaration in the proposal) proposal has been left abandoned.
Considering that the ending votes were 67/34 (66.3%) with several
no-votes being only due to reasonably minor issues
Am 19.02.2015 um 05:21 schrieb Dennis Birkholz:
Am 18.02.2015 um 21:44 schrieb Anthony Ferrara:
Since the resignation of Andrea, the mixed-mode type hint (called
declaration in the proposal) proposal has been left abandoned.
Considering that the ending votes were 67/34 (66.3%) with several
On 18 February 2015 at 22:21, Albert Casademont Filella
albertcasadem...@gmail.com wrote:
So I propose 3 voting options: Yes (strict), Yes (weak), No. The Yes votes
combined need 2/3 of the votes. Then a simple majority of 50%+1 between the
different Yes votes is needed.
This is pretty flawed,
18 matches
Mail list logo
