Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:100999
Return-Path: <TonyMarston@hotmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 30088 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2017 10:35:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 31 Oct 2017 10:35:43 -0000
X-Host-Fingerprint: 62.31.75.76 76.75-31-62.static.virginmediabusiness.co.uk  
Received: from [62.31.75.76] ([62.31.75.76:6240] helo=localhost.localdomain)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 64/21-07742-EF158F95 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 05:35:42 -0500
Message-ID: <64.21.07742.EF158F95@pb1.pair.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CALTzvrKFLnCW4+D-FU4cp2rmOScF77vZFz4f1cuVP3VyMzkkeg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALTzvrKFLnCW4+D-FU4cp2rmOScF77vZFz4f1cuVP3VyMzkkeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:35:36 -0000
Lines: 2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="utf-8";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3564.1216
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3564.1216
X-Posted-By: 62.31.75.76
Subject: Re: RFC - Array Of for PHP 7
From: TonyMarston@hotmail.com ("Tony Marston")

""Michal Harezlak""  wrote in message 
news:CALTzvrKFLnCW4+D-FU4cp2rmOScF77vZFz4f1cuVP3VyMzkkeg@mail.gmail.com...
>
>Hallo,
>
>I would like to create a RFC for PHP 7, but the same RFC was created and
>declined 3 years ago for PHP 5.4. PHP 7 support much better type hinging so
>I think this RFC should be voted again.
>
>What should I do? Should I create the RPF in common way?
>
>Link to mentioned RFC:
>https://wiki.php.net/rfc/arrayof

This strikes me as being nothing more than a micro-optimisation that does 
nothing but pander to the laziness of certain programmers. Instead of having 
to write a few lines of code to validate something they want the language to 
do it for them. It may come as a surprise to some people, but being a 
programmer actually involves the writing of program code. It is not 
sufficient to express an idea and have the language fill in all the details 
as that forces the language to have to detect and deal with a myriad of 
possibilities.

I would evaluate each proposed change to the language with a simple 
question - does it provide the greatest good to the greatest number? 
Considering the fact that this RFC will only benefit a miniscule minority of 
developers yet make the language more complicated, slower to run, and more 
difficult to maintain as more and more edge cases are identified as "bugs", 
it offers negative benefits to the vast number of programmers who are happy 
with the language as it currently exists. As such it fails that test and 
should be rejected.

-- 
Tony Marston