Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71359 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 46701 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2014 21:27:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Jan 2014 21:27:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.67 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.67 smtp67.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.67] ([108.166.43.67:42890] helo=smtp67.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 9F/AC-02192-2B49DD25 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:27:16 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8A31D1482A8; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:27:12 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp1.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id DFFAE1482B0; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:27:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52DD94AE.6030705@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:27:10 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sara Golemon CC: "internals@lists.php.net" References: <52DCA3E7.80602@lerdorf.com> <52DCED71.3020207@pthreads.org> <006301cf15f5$22f8df60$68ea9e20$@tutteli.ch> <52DD77E8.8000800@ajf.me> <52DD8E98.3010606@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Introducing "Array Of" RFC From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! >> I wonder why it is enough for them? Are they all missing something very >> important? >> > To quote someone who's skill and abilities I respect: "Just because > they do it some way in X, doesn't mean it belongs in PHP." That is true. But this is not "just because" - I'm not arguing about any specific syntax or even semantics. I'm talking about all of them not even going in that general direction and still being fine. That makes me question if the need for generics is that great and if they actually are a good fit for a dynamic language, at least in a way that they are presented - i.e. as type checking mechanism, not as code generation mechanism. I could repeat the regular arguments why I think they are not if you'd like - I did it on this list like 100 times and everybody is tired and hating me for that already, but I could do it again on popular request. So it's not the only argument. It is an additional argument providing some perspective. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227