So true.
I can't really complain. Well, I can, and that's what I've been doing in much of this thread.
It's mostly just yelling at the sky for no good reason other than to make myself feel better at this point, if I were to be completely honest with you.
The problem for me is working with a big legacy codebase. I'd rather have php break backwards compatibility and change === to ==.
Nope.
I wish I were kidding. This is where PHP diverges from JS in a way that really will surprise people coming from JS (PHP7.something):
php > var_dump("0.2" == "0.20");
bool(true)
I have mixed feelings on this.
On the one hand, I desperately want to agree with you, and probably for all the same reasons. On the other hand, languages like PHP with their dynamic typing system make implicit conversion almost a necessity to retain the identity operator (===) because they strive not to break "too much" (for some value of "too much").
Although, I'd imagine your argument is akin to "well, just cast it to what you expect" (e.g. `(int)$_GET['value']`), and you're right. That's how it should be done, of course.
But, as you mentioned about legacy code bases... sometimes it's not that easy.
Yes, it's documented, but it doesn't make it any less obnoxious. IMO the thought of implicit conversion is absolutely asinine.
But, in fairness, PHP isn't the only language that does this. Python, at least, is more sane.
> and drop any string after, e.g. '1eabc' becomes 1.
In defense of PHP, it does yield a NOTICE if you attempt to apply certain operations to implicitly cast strings (e.g. addition), so there's that.
Suffices to say that while I've written PHP for years, I'm quite comfortable with its idiosyncrasies, it doesn't mean I don't find them appallingly brain damaged. :)
FWIW the identity operator (===) is also a best practice in JS for nearly identical reasons which also exhibits similar (and in some cases nearly identical) implicit casting.