Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75561
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain devilix.net designates 209.85.219.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54536191-1B92-4933-973F-0C8289D13A4C@ajf.me>
References: <08503591-EFC8-48E6-984E-FFC292C5EA5F@ajf.me>
	<16D48604-0C0A-4613-91A4-21392E3A2636@ajf.me>
	<CAGAGxbZG+c46P4E2pmEHNnEv=4DyTrHOuXbZu3zAOSU3M6-A-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<05CE2216-C5D9-4937-9F2E-AA1407284D9F@ajf.me>
	<53C460DF.5040304@sugarcrm.com>
	<53C53A96.2040303@gmail.com>
	<53C55342.1010207@sugarcrm.com>
	<53C563B3.6060905@gmail.com>
	<CAPhkiZwvqW=d3Ayn-=Hx5HfkcOFB+gQ6rRoFThxA8hESK4WLrA@mail.gmail.com>
	<54536191-1B92-4933-973F-0C8289D13A4C@ajf.me>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 23:02:41 +0300
Message-ID: <CAPhkiZxCZtaBDfq407Zk+CoxjgESHABZjppUe6T9UmVt44ss5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Scalar Type Hinting With Casts (re-opening)
From: narf@devilix.net (Andrey Andreev)

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>
> On 15 Jul 2014, at 20:43, Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, I know what you mean here and I'm not criticizing you
>> specifically (in fact, I'm intentionally taking it ouf of context),
>> but that's "PHP internals", not "PHP community".
>>
>> The PHP community that I know, wants to have _both_ type cast hinting
>> and strict type declarations.
>
> I=E2=80=99m not sure that=E2=80=99s quite the case. There are camps wanti=
ng one, there are camps wanting the other, I suppose some want both, but to=
 me that seems like a not-a-compromise compromise solution. The point of th=
is RFC, to some extent, is to be a reasonable compromise between completely=
 strict declarations and cast hinting, providing the safety of the first an=
d the flexibility of the second. I think it strikes the balance well.

Unless you really force the camps to pick one by saying "you can't
have Y if we've got X" (to which there's no technical limitation, so
that's not true), then a camp that wants X doesn't mean a camp that
doesn't want Y, so we end up with:

    Camps wanting one + camps wanting another =3D=3D a larger camp that
wants all of it

A compromise isn't excluded by this. It would just have to be a "ok,
let's do X right now and we'll think about Y later" compromise (point
being, don't exclude Y) instead of a "let's have a mixed something
between the two that nobody really, really likes" one.