Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77491
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54208F5C.4080603@sugarcrm.com>
References: <6893A97A-EC4C-4124-B804-96E2A26B953F@ajf.me>
	<B84F8A67-CE7E-4716-A211-7BB52421534F@ajf.me>
	<EAB826F3-959E-4DD2-9474-6EADDA12EF4D@ajf.me>
	<CAEZPtU532FXAOiKNWkVFpcvEK=44LLZ-SLgO4WFc3G0KL4=17Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<54208F5C.4080603@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:42:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU6LCbU6TAA5Mxvz0kC1LQ=A_ceBnrQ7M1EtBKXQHiRXvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11351c3678001e0503af2bf8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Scalar Type Hinting with Cast
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--001a11351c3678001e0503af2bf8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sep 22, 2014 11:06 PM, "Stas Malyshev" <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > - One about having scalar typed arguements, hinted or not, simple
> > yes/no, so we at least agree on having the feature
>
> I'm not sure how that would work. We agree on having what feature?
> Having coercive typing and having strict typing are two different
> options, working in different way and implying different coding
> approaches. And then there's also a third option which is a "compromise"
> approach where it is sometimes strict and sometimes not depending on a
> matrix of choices, and different matrices would work in different way.
> If I agree, for example, that coercive model is helpful - that doesn't
> mean I want complete strict typing, and I certainly would prefer none
> for now - in hope I would succeed convincing the majority in the future
> in the merits of coercive typing approach - than having strict model
> implemented now and closing the door for the coercive one forever. So I
> don't see how "at least agree" without specifying what we agreeing on
> works out.
>
> > To be more clear: We must get a decision here. I am convinced that
> > this is a top requested feature, since very long. Delay it forever
>
> Is there any data to support this conviction that this is not merely
> requested now and then, but it is a *top* requested feature since very
> long? Note that none of the languages most close to PHP have it.

Most?

Python has it, java too, ruby and perl not. We can continue to list those
having them or not, not sure that brings much to this discussion.


> Also, I did a poll one on stackoverflow:
>
>
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/27564/what-features-would-you-like-to-have-in-php
>
> and it's not on top at all, though it is among the requested ones.
> However, having no consensus on it, saying "let's get together and make
> something" does not look like a good idea to me, because there are
> opportunity costs to prematurely having "something" that is not
> satisfactory.

Everyone I asked wants it, be at conferences, UGs, or devolopers of one of
the top tools or framework out there. There was also
http://www.php-vote.com/browse/latest showing in the top requests.

In any case, this endless discussion leads nowhere and we are not going to
have anything done using such debates and arguing.

Cheers,

--

Pierre

--001a11351c3678001e0503af2bf8--