Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[Contributing] [Standards] Added entry for identical comparison #5403

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from
Closed

[Contributing] [Standards] Added entry for identical comparison #5403

Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
b0055ed
[Contributing] [Conventions] Added entry for identical comparison
phansys Jun 15, 2015
fc350ca
Moved strict comparison doc from conventions to standards.
phansys Jun 15, 2015
ef30569
Updated message enforcing always to use strict comparison.
phansys Jun 16, 2015
b0a441f
Mixed both snippets in just one.
phansys Jun 16, 2015
b648da8
Updated markdown delimiter for code snippet.
phansys Jun 16, 2015
c073821
Moved "comparisons" inside "structure".
phansys Jun 26, 2015
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
18 changes: 18 additions & 0 deletions contributing/code/standards.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -167,6 +167,23 @@ Service Naming Conventions

* A group name uses the underscore notation.

.. _contributing-code-standards-comparisons:

Comparisons
-----------

Always use `identical comparison`_ unless you need type juggling::
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should put this in the list of standards as well, instead of a custom section

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You mean in structure section?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes (sorry if I was a bit too vague)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No problem at all, I'll try to update this PR and #5402 ASAP based in your suggestions.
Thank you.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@wouterj, updated.


// use
if (1 === $integerExpected) {
// ...
}

// instead of
if (1 == $integerExpected) {
// ...
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What about using one code block for this to make it more compact?

Always use `identical comparison`_ unless you need type juggling::

    // use
    if (1 === $integerExcepted) {
        // ...
    }

    // instead of
    if (1 == $integerExcepted) {
        // ...
    }

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems good to me @xabbuh.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Updated.


Documentation
-------------

Expand All @@ -186,3 +203,4 @@ License
.. _`PSR-1`: http://www.php-fig.org/psr/psr-1/
.. _`PSR-2`: http://www.php-fig.org/psr/psr-2/
.. _`PSR-4`: http://www.php-fig.org/psr/psr-4/
.. _`identical comparison`: https://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.comparison.php