Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123893
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------JUg4pmjZMStrLshfeNKLw4GO"
Message-ID: <be7bc3e2-ce2b-422f-9f3a-743829f1e1be@scriptfusion.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 22:04:30 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [Initial Feedback] Typed Arrays
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <6D0733B2-A1D1-45EC-B93E-029B1616A22F@miles.systems>
 <71dc8137-ded0-41dc-bc9b-32dde12f9170@app.fastmail.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <71dc8137-ded0-41dc-bc9b-32dde12f9170@app.fastmail.com>
From: bilge@scriptfusion.com (Bilge)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------JUg4pmjZMStrLshfeNKLw4GO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 26/06/2024 21:56, Casper Langemeijer wrote:
>>  Generics or bust.
>
> I do not understand the reasoning behind that. Is it because we really 
> want generics, but when the 95% use-case is solved we fear that there 
> would not be enough momentum to get that? I'd love to have generics 
> too, but a very simple array syntax would in my opinion still add a 
> lot of value, even if we already had generics.

It's not that there wouldn't be enough momentum; if anything, a 
successful typed arrays PR could give rise to such momentum. If it were 
possible to have typed arrays that were fully compatible with an 
(imagined) generics specification then I would be all for it. The 
problem is, how can we ever ensure compatibility with something that 
doesn't exist?

It seems to me we either solve is problem properly (with generics) or 
not at all.

Cheers,
Bilge

--------------JUg4pmjZMStrLshfeNKLw4GO
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/06/2024 21:56, Casper Langemeijer
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:71dc8137-ded0-41dc-bc9b-32dde12f9170@app.fastmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <title></title>
      <style type="text/css">p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <div> Generics or bust.<br>
        </div>
      </blockquote>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>I do not understand the reasoning behind that. Is it because
        we really want generics, but when the 95% use-case is solved we
        fear that there would not be enough momentum to get that? I'd
        love to have generics too, but a very simple array syntax would
        in my opinion still add a lot of value, even if we already had
        generics.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>It's not that there wouldn't be enough momentum; if anything, a
      successful typed arrays PR could give rise to such momentum. If it
      were possible to have typed arrays that were fully compatible with
      an (imagined) generics specification then I would be all for it.
      The problem is, how can we ever ensure compatibility with
      something that doesn't exist?</p>
    <p>It seems to me we either solve is problem properly (with
      generics) or not at all.</p>
    <p>Cheers,<br>
      Bilge<br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>

--------------JUg4pmjZMStrLshfeNKLw4GO--