Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:102688
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D197D623-17A5-4EB3-A578-93BF860AD68E@ez.no>
References: <CAF+90c_L7S+EB8YxdNNpNZ7NhhYwCbwEw5_TSnSwUNN-zLVvCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <b4a9394a-184f-906a-0e34-c14cf8172666@gmail.com> <CA+kxMuQk_5KJT5RPK6B2+4whS1Wz4NTxLDAhXkc0uSurxPNLPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAESVnVrFsZCEbwTTs+ROF19nHh6=XN6dhHJqxVw5EKa5bK5ngA@mail.gmail.com>
 <c2b3a7b2-b4b6-db88-a7c7-5a08fed0d8a4@telia.com> <CAF+90c8tNO1SsMjGnW9tGPGHtY4kD07SNS-qC_LfkVXVsp0GUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <10e578d7-7a24-3ca0-ca0d-d5ed1a39dca3@telia.com> <80a8f588-05a3-48e5-bf40-bf1685b3105e@gmx.de>
 <CAF+90c-gOKrnHtLv1oJuHQ9QWxYjEZHwAzzaUL0c18x48=HezQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bd79bc16-ff3d-1c9b-a775-9c50c422b8a2@gmx.de> <CAESVnVpHhKPBsTQgu=4u3UPC1oF_e6-iW9_njbq+09WTQb+Oqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAESVnVogxMdbdObdS2Kz-+WP5U=+VvzVXfr55Qy6iYNg=2Z-Wg@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR0201MB35423A128EDAFE866C73B66EAC460@DM5PR0201MB3542.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <D197D623-17A5-4EB3-A578-93BF860AD68E@ez.no>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:18:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CADyq6sJDo_4jBx3dZ6eR7mS29-aEB7Ky3eta9st2VQDra23crA@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIFLDuG1ja2U=?= <andre.romcke@ez.no>
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas@symfony.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001619ba0570a19e08"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Typed Properties
From: ocramius@gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)

--0000000000001619ba0570a19e08
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It's been a few weeks since this has first landed here, and we're just
wasting time in relatively silly discussions at this point:

 - As I said earlier, this patch has already been tested against some
extremely tricky scenarios, so from a userland perspective it is safe for
inclusion. If you don't have confidence in something related to it, please
write a test case and help out.
 - can we get a yes/no from the RMs on whether we'll have the time window
to (potentially) get this voted and (*if* passed) merged? Shoot out a mail
with the decision, please. We could have a vote for which version to
include this in, if that's really such a big issue.
 - can we split out discussions on 8.0 scope? Minor versions are indeed for
features. If PHP 8.0 lacks interesting/marketing features, that's a
different story.
 - Nikita/Bob: can this be voted upon right after the RMs have taken a
decision? Anything blocking missing?
 - Is the reference issue reported by Nicolas a blocker? Nicolas, can you
clarify here?




Marco Pivetta

http://twitter.com/Ocramius

http://ocramius.github.com/

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Andr=C3=A9 R=C3=B8mcke <andre.romcke@ez.no=
> wrote:

> On 7 Jul 2018, at 23:13, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: php@golemon.com [mailto:php@golemon.com] On Behalf Of Sara
> >> Golemon
> >> Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:36 PM
> >> To: Christoph M. Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>
> >> Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>; stas@php.net; Bj=C3=B6rn Lars=
son
> >> <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>; Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>;
> >> Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>; Marco Pivetta
> >> <ocramius@gmail.com>; PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Typed Properties
> >>
> >> Just want to be annoying about this since the currently scheduled fork
> date for
> >> PHP-7.3 is 11 days off.
> >> 1/ Do we have *ANY* objections to additional alpha(s) to accommodate
> Typed
> >> Props? (I would propose two additional alphas) 2/ Do we actually need
> to hold a
> >> formal vote? (If so, that vote should start *now*)
> >
> > Sara,
> >
> > I do see a couple of issues here.
> >
> > First, it may be a personal thing, but I feel that the flexibility
> towards adding this is very contrasty with the inflexibility shown as we
> headed towards the PHP 7.0 feature freeze - inflexibility that resulted i=
n
> a rushed (and IMHO wrong) decision regarding how to implement the
> non-strict types.  For the record - as I said back then - I think that th=
e
> right way is to be flexible - the dates are just dates, and are - in all
> honesty - not that important - it=E2=80=99s the severe inconsistency that=
 bothers
> me.
>
>
> Regardless of typed properties this sounds like something that should be
> tackled as an independent topic. (It could in theory, if accepted, be a n=
ew
> type flag introduced in 7.4 and made default in 8.0 that affect all type
> usage consistently.)
>
>
> >
> > Secondly, and somewhat related - typed properties isn't a small
> feature.  It is, in fact, a pretty huge one.  Making exceptions for a
> fairly minor feature or some extra deprecation is one thing.  Making an
> exception for something as fundamental as that feels wrong.
> >
> > Even though Nikita's proposal and implementation look pretty solid,
> something as fundamental as that should go through a substantial active
> discussion period (which didn't really happen here as it wasn't clear
> whether this was headed for an exceptional 7.3 addition or not) - and
> independently - should perhaps go hand-in-hand with fixing the flaws of t=
he
> non-strict types - something we can do in PHP 8.  If we do the latter, th=
en
> perhaps, just perhaps, we can introduce it hand-in-hand with typed
> variables - and if we do, it will be sensible to do it at the same time a=
nd
> not in a gradual rollout.  Personally, I think even independently of type=
d
> variables, typed properties feel like an 8.0 feature, not a 7.x feature.
>
>
> While I agree this is big, (from user land it=E2=80=99s fantastic), and s=
hould
> only go in if solid. It does contradict your argument the other day about
> being careful what to push into 8.0 scope as core resources are scarce.
>
> So if we look at it from that perspective, then spreading the risk is
> essentially safer.
>
>

--0000000000001619ba0570a19e08--