Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81987
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.216.52 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <563A7DA0-8334-49F3-97CC-0787BE8191DA@ajf.me>
References: <8703B53E-2C4A-4AC6-95C4-D4F19C6D5221@ajf.me>
	<D5E65B07-2366-4A14-97BF-780267200717@zend.com>
	<20150205234432.933F5261BE9@dd15934.kasserver.com>
	<CAN383GDAKUJWda=XJwWUL3VHsfc6cc0stJx8HEDp1z2fXs3jBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<563A7DA0-8334-49F3-97CC-0787BE8191DA@ajf.me>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:02:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CAN383GB1S59kC8tnMdBorZeZ2fyAVVtEcuBKut3cKLDtgunG9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: Thomas Bley <mails@thomasbley.de>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113519c4ca2399050e60227d
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
From: andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans)

--001a113519c4ca2399050e60227d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

> Hi Andi,
>
> > On 5 Feb 2015, at 23:50, Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am not sure.
> >
> > I think we need to explicitly vote on a weak type hinting option.
> > Andrea, I think this should be an option in any vote. Right now it feel=
s
> like the only option to people is the very challenging, non-consensus
> driving RFC or nothing.
> > I think we have plenty of key folks who would support weak type hinting
> and frankly, I think that would be a huge win for everyone!
>
> Yes, *you* think it=E2=80=99s a huge win for everyone. There are plenty w=
ho=E2=80=99d
> disagree.
>
> This RFC is a different attempt at consensus. Rather than asserting the
> dominance of one idea over the other and completely ignoring the segment =
of
> the community that believes in a particular approach, it allows using bot=
h
> approaches. It allows choice. It=E2=80=99s radical, sure, but I think try=
ing to
> accommodate everyone=E2=80=99s use cases (or at least most people=E2=80=
=99s) is better than
> covering only one of two.
>

Just to be clear, I think it's a thoughtful RFC. I don't think it's dumb. I
can even see where you're coming from on trying to balance the approaches.
I do think we should also represent the weak type hinting only folks in a
ballot too.

Andi

--001a113519c4ca2399050e60227d--