Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49361
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.170 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        b=dQNsEIuubCHg7zKUE8DXU4QhFPTdlvRVQfsGCLhAizcUXHyInWgHj7kkqWW6GC4L+I
         zmcJQS3/jyk1iyMquGgqx0/D0Ti7a+ntmln0LMeyMVPRiHMMCRubIJlXGQa0XTd0A2nR
         E3NW032MAhdC3wx1REX6pvkT5Gcpih/J7bL+k=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4C62DBE9.7090008@sugarcrm.com>
References: <AANLkTim7sNwZWyo8dQz-o6S=Tta-OGYqnDM0cDJX3A49@mail.gmail.com>
	<1281478269.6608.292.camel@guybrush>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1008102325440.29410@kossu.derickrethans.nl>
	<AANLkTikaMfPERRH8bKqBj1ajf8muBrnQK_Gv6SZcObzK@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=OebDc73DMVCUj5RJnHzv_VS6gn0_uATxb32dr@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C61E5CA.5070604@sugarcrm.com>
	<AANLkTi=_hPcCJYoH1v-G1vdwY2PY1aLhfDJNKwDLsK9T@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C61F3EF.5030409@sugarcrm.com>
	<AANLkTiniS9zQMU6WubkqBOL40i3COnwpnMgTSWqXO2XJ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C6241D1.6030909@sugarcrm.com>
	<AANLkTinXQGCEhKR5C3iugq4Rv=Ym=dd-9A_jUdJFy6yR@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C62DBE9.7090008@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:31:22 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=TyOAxDuHyyJNr8jOiEt0VHuEgWX5v3QyNQqVu@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Strict typing
From: phpwnd@gmail.com (Josh Davis)

On 11 August 2010 19:20, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote:
> I'm against it on sanity and logic grounds. I explained the reasons (for the
> Nth time) above. If you still can't comprehend that there's logic behind
> what I am saying and call it "ideology" - well, I guess there's a limit of
> what one can explain.

I perfectly understand that there are reasons behind wanting the more
relaxed "smartcasting" to be the only option but please go ahead and
be condescending if you want. There is logic behind what you're
saying: your logic. It's not a universal logic though, as evidenced by
the lack of consensus.

My point is this: Derick's proposal (which started this thread before
it got forked somehow) was to allow everybody to have it their way.
You are fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happening,
choosing instead to impose your logic and your definition of what is
sound to the users. I call that ideology. My own ideology is to leave
that choice to the users if it doesn't incur a high cost. That way, my
ideology is more compatible with others'.

Offering both typechecking and smartcasting is compatible with both
groups of users, which, btw, do overlap to some extent; if the feature
was available I'd use typechecking for internal functions and
smartcasting for most of the public stuff, depending on what rules it
follows.