rfc:typecheckingstrictandweak
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
rfc:typecheckingstrictandweak [2010/05/30 21:45] – minor tweaks to handle the fact that we now have 3 different variations lsmith | rfc:typecheckingstrictandweak [2010/05/30 21:47] – some lang tweaks lsmith | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
^ NULL (NULL) | ^ NULL (NULL) | ||
^ %%'' | ^ %%'' | ||
- | |||
===== Option (2): new type juggeling rules with E_STRICT on data loss ===== | ===== Option (2): new type juggeling rules with E_STRICT on data loss ===== | ||
- | The here proposed auto-conversion | + | The conversion rules proposed |
- | An E_STRICT would be raised if due to auto-conversion there would be data loss. So for example " | + | An E_STRICT would be raised if due to auto-conversion there would be data loss. So for example " |
Here is a short list of examples to illustrate the weak type hinting. Note that just like the current array/ | Here is a short list of examples to illustrate the weak type hinting. Note that just like the current array/ |
rfc/typecheckingstrictandweak.txt · Last modified: 2017/09/22 13:28 by 127.0.0.1