Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101394 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 62237 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2017 21:04:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 19 Dec 2017 21:04:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@fleshgrinder.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@fleshgrinder.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain fleshgrinder.com from 212.232.28.122 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@fleshgrinder.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.232.28.122 mx201.easyname.com Received: from [212.232.28.122] ([212.232.28.122:42344] helo=mx201.easyname.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id D3/F6-10479-5EE793A5 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:04:38 -0500 Received: from cable-81-173-135-181.netcologne.de ([81.173.135.181] helo=[192.168.178.20]) by mx.easyname.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eRP3w-0001vE-OB; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:04:34 +0000 Reply-To: internals@lists.php.net To: "lists@rhsoft.net" , internals@lists.php.net References: <3a8054fd-b99f-771f-1f6c-29cf198acdeb@phpgangsta.de> <7d0661d1-c41a-f772-63bb-5296f2fcc62c@rhsoft.net> <09b34130-5a92-604c-44f2-536c3f527609@fleshgrinder.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 22:04:27 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DNSBL-BARRACUDACENTRAL: YES X-DNSBL-PBLSPAMHAUS: YES X-DNSBL-SPAMRATS: YES Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Mixed Typehint From: php@fleshgrinder.com (Fleshgrinder) On 12/19/2017 9:59 PM, lists@rhsoft.net wrote: > yes, it's mostly cosmetic (frankly even the OP statet this in the > initial mail) but if that comes witout a noticebale price to pay why not? > > "It's a simple alias for the current behavior of no type and is fully > interchangeable" sounds like it could even be optimized out at compile > time of the script - so "you don't need it" is not much compelling for me > Adding that optimization step is already more effort than not introducing it in the first place, don't you agree? Seriously, I am neutral on the topic in itself. Fact is that it is an unnecessary change from a technical perspective and it will not bring PHP forward in adopting a sound type system. I just wanted to show support for Stanislav's position because he is simply right from a technical point of view (which imho is more important in language design). There is no argument against the "we like it pretty". -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger