Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82163
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.223.170 as permitted sender)
References: <8703B53E-2C4A-4AC6-95C4-D4F19C6D5221@ajf.me> <CAF+90c-s=s5P-w-P48iqm9J+RJn1DvKTnDCsn2sYDxHmmg=7NA@mail.gmail.com>
 <54D5659D.5000602@php.net> <54D7A6DB.3050209@seld.be>
In-Reply-To: <54D7A6DB.3050209@seld.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
thread-index: AQJMIZG9mXkdirFXmuP9r5ZK3xIuzQGYx3GRAvm0W3gBWDJV2JvAEhJw
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 21:48:19 +0200
Message-ID: <c35d12eadc1abc5df89b3d8a324e0260@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jordi Boggiano <j.boggiano@seld.be>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jordi Boggiano [mailto:j.boggiano@seld.be]
> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 8:12 PM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
>
> On 07/02/2015 01:08, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> > On 02/06/2015 10:22 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> >> After much initial reluctance, I've voted in favor of this RFC.
> >
> >   After reading your email, Nikita, I deleted my vote (it was no
> > before).
> >   I will review the RFC again, with your arguments (and others) in mind
> >   and maybe I'll come to a different conclusion.
>
> Thank you for that, Sebastian. It is not a simple RFC and votes should be
> thought through as it is such an old and important topic to many people.

Indeed it is.

I think it's very clear that this RFC represents (almost) the farthest
possible position from consensus, with all of the original key designers of
the language strictly opposing it, as well as many others.  This is one of
the most polarizing votes I ever recall here.  I'm not sure whether it'll
get through or not, but given the intention of this RFC was to create a
proposal everyone can rally behind, it very clearly failed.  We didn't have
to wait for a vote by the way, it was clear from the discussion on
internals@.

I sincerely hope that we'll gather enough votes to prevent strict typing
from making it into PHP.

Last, voters should take into account that this isn't an 'either this RFC or
nothing' situation.  I think it's very unfortunate that the original RFC -
that had zero controversy surrounding it - was never put to a vote.
Clearly, it didn't give the strict camp what it wanted, but on the other
hand, it introduced nothing into the language that anybody considers
damaging to PHP - even in the eyes of the strict camp.  That cannot be said
about this RFC.  I'm not sure how many of the people who support the current
RFC would be equally happy (or happier) with the original one, but I suspect
that it's a fair number, and we'd definitely want to put it to a vote in
case the current one fails to pass (and potentially even if it does pass, to
give people the opportunity to choose between having the extra strict part
vs. not having it, a choice they didn't get but should have).

Zeev