Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78108
Return-Path: <are.you.winning@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 91789 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2014 09:35:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 16 Oct 2014 09:35:26 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=are.you.winning@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=are.you.winning@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.45 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: are.you.winning@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.216.45 mail-qa0-f45.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.216.45] ([209.85.216.45:59395] helo=mail-qa0-f45.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 35/71-11594-C519F345 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 05:35:26 -0400
Received: by mail-qa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id s7so2073971qap.4
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 02:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
         :from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=nHAC3CzT89GjiLV5C954AqBRyOCPKYAVY0Qjj5+Eznw=;
        b=IeG9aYCZx69DsTiNwYBjTazJ6jGqpqQaWXAFDRLpmWF4PrAcSIHCeg9BY3BGnigROH
         y1S6+Sk7/Va+AfGvBZpwItNvAX4PV4woVIckW0T79gYLRcMdeR2S9rCnHRVr0nX8LpCx
         oVoVT1HuvzlOPJDWX18qA3bChGEhacf2GdpVkWM/f6Ur9cg2iVwvsN2D1RZQwWFsnLZW
         cEJD15wMEe4JfatEGDyxn6c5B3eq+R07POTtpPG9MSFPqw5UZb2sYDk5O4OSUdREvVf5
         JaMomflU6h12IeUyqIzRGqog5ipCKGGnBO48kIZSGQkNS6OCGiTa8wVbsn/eF0PUKvL6
         k8wQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.101.120 with SMTP id t111mr336184qge.6.1413452121653;
 Thu, 16 Oct 2014 02:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: are.you.winning@gmail.com
Received: by 10.141.28.193 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 02:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+9eiLsv-Ux8tWOjkitm8PVTnBfQgmoqOZUNsaPGtMLOUDni5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFMT4No9Z-rDJ5s46vgrcOJPSxTDQZWs+K2myJt4H8517n=B=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLsv-Ux8tWOjkitm8PVTnBfQgmoqOZUNsaPGtMLOUDni5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:35:21 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: lhMj9c0jnwOCEhdxhy0pzJpqErw
Message-ID: <CAGAGxbYoftvxXPg2G0gOGHAAptTCujbM2WTm6JBQmES0rzRN8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Cc: Levi Morrison <levi_morrison@byu.edu>, internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Return Types Update
From: cw@daverandom.com (Chris Wright)

Dmitry

On 16 October 2014 08:44, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:
> The RFC is very consistent.
> It proposes only a part of the desired type-hinting features, but this part
> is not questionable for me.

May I enquire what it misses out according to your ideal desired
feature set? Just so that I/everyone is clear on what the limitations
and potential areas for future expansion are, and to ensure nothing
has been missed that could be included in this change without being
too contentious.

Apart from distinct features (e.g. scalar types) I'm not sure what is
missing from the proposal, so I'd like to know what I'm missing.

Also, just for the record, I am +1 on the RFC as it currently stands.

Thanks, Chris