Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80583 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 62563 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2015 19:46:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Jan 2015 19:46:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=marcio.web2@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=marcio.web2@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: marcio.web2@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.215.47 mail-la0-f47.google.com Received: from [209.85.215.47] ([209.85.215.47:54745] helo=mail-la0-f47.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 8D/00-61348-B0918B45 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:46:19 -0500 Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id hz20so15475429lab.6 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:46:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=93sWky+ndpPyoJ50706oSDhdMzfBw2aOAb+K8mfQrs4=; b=VN0HIIv9GuoszFzfJhHNZyi20Jz20KvNDdgH/xcr67Xp6AnQ94EHHHR/IdiO25VPki yU/3Is1f5LoWDMw1Y5fEYLTz9WRClDJ5Flp0cYGK34nDu+0iNmJKJlj1t+sjyHpgW7+f 3kppot89b30UovvWVaAbVZox9/nXSoDz8QWBrAvM/qnPwlNXTkJZ9mKWZ04dXboZtMD8 DpHVtQVHwo0bnX7HSVJIolyNXDvDkyCtJ6cyrcrPjm0R3xLIi73/vqF+ZGwIstffjRCR 8SZdhxRu/NiGQJ+ops2amQvFPMay8oP7NeCN5pGbKXykcmpS8D//MPJjf/HktMBrfIIp ONXw== X-Received: by 10.152.37.168 with SMTP id z8mr11757404laj.63.1421351176061; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:46:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.21.101 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:45:55 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: marcio3w@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: <8DCD1B72-C81D-499E-B455-E4A042CD76E6@ajf.me> <4E2073DE-0951-498C-97BB-DDAC094F11FA@ajf.me> <9a033dd1f223f854e760924d118ab812@mail.gmail.com> <2ae0164cb9b9bf1c974d7a3c60af0466@mail.gmail.com> <6105ea99002e634373c09685310e26a6@mail.gmail.com> <85F6139E-6332-4645-91B8-C852B07EA62A@ajf.me> <12433808-9D62-48D3-B66E-74572C61BF68@zend.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 16:45:55 -0300 Message-ID: To: "S.A.N" Cc: Andi Gutmans , Andrea Faulds , Zeev Suraski , RQuadling@gmail.com, Leigh , PHP Internals List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e014941faf348cd050cb61b30 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Scalar Type Hints v0.2 From: marcio.web2@gmail.com (Marcio Almada) --089e014941faf348cd050cb61b30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi, I would like to call everyone's attention, specially people contributing directly to this RFC series, to what S.A.N just said: > Many developers PHP offers dual syntax: > > 1. Strict > function bar(int $num){} > > 2. Lax > function bar((int) $num){} > > Maybe it makes sense to put this option on the ballot if it passes a vote, > it will be possible to put an end to the discus? This idea has been **so recurrent** and yet systematically ignored by RFC owners. Why? I think that we need to baby step and try to approve coercive type declarations first and decide upon a possible stricter type check later: How a bout a reboot of what ircmaxell@php.net already started in https://wiki.php.net/rfc/parameter_type_casting_hints for v0.3? PS: Please, let's not fall into the mindset of "if v0.2 is not a good idea then v0.1 instantly becomes more acceptable", we still have time to try some alternatives. --089e014941faf348cd050cb61b30--