Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:58382 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 43563 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2012 02:32:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Mar 2012 02:32:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ceo@l-i-e.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ceo@l-i-e.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain l-i-e.com designates 67.139.134.202 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ceo@l-i-e.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.139.134.202 o2.hostbaby.com FreeBSD 4.7-5.2 (or MacOS X 10.2-10.3) (2) Received: from [67.139.134.202] ([67.139.134.202:3662] helo=o2.hostbaby.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 76/93-46815-0BFDE4F4 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:32:17 -0500 Received: (qmail 29101 invoked by uid 98); 1 Mar 2012 02:32:19 -0000 Received: from localhost by o2.hostbaby.com (envelope-from , uid 1013) with qmail-scanner-2.05 ( Clear:RC:1(127.0.0.1):. Processed in 0.037161 secs); 01 Mar 2012 02:32:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO www.l-i-e.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Mar 2012 02:32:19 -0000 Received: from webmail (SquirrelMail authenticated user ceo@l-i-e.com) by www.l-i-e.com with HTTP; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:32:19 -0600 Message-ID: <80e16e4c67bbf04a676b73798682b07e.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com> In-Reply-To: References: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06AC3152F5D@il-ex2.zend.net> <43409D28-75AC-4E9C-A0EA-66FC1DB9FAE7@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:32:19 -0600 To: internals@lists.php.net User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar type hinting From: ceo@l-i-e.com ("Richard Lynch") On Wed, February 29, 2012 6:55 pm, Kris Craig wrote: > If not, I'll go ahead and draft an RFC for these proposed amendments > sometime today or tomorrow when I get a spare moment. If anyone has > any > thoughts on this, please share them! Thanks! This is not an official answer. I don't have time to dig out references. I believe the PHP community settled on the idea of having a single simple pass / fail vote without the complexity of branches / options. It was simply to hard to tally the votes once you open up the options, because your support base ends up being split. NOTE: See current US Republican Primaries for examples of how complex it gets. :-) There is nothing to stop one from drafting multiple proposals, with alternative options, and each one getting vote upon, other than the time available to the person drafting the proposals. And, of course, a reasonable expectation that with TOO many proposals of the same idea, the community would quickly turn into robo-voting, both for and against, as that's just human nature. Again, I say, I don't claim to speak for the whole community. This is merely my interpretation from my faulty memory of past events. -- brain cancer update: http://richardlynch.blogspot.com/search/label/brain%20tumor Donate: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FS9NLTNEEKWBE