Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82177
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.213.169 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>	<c35d12eadc1abc5df89b3d8a324e0260@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN=kQJcA+cNREzqot=12yZWWoDo_JFyua56kCRRHXE0OAypYvA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN=kQJcA+cNREzqot=12yZWWoDo_JFyua56kCRRHXE0OAypYvA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
thread-index: AQJMIZG9mXkdirFXmuP9r5ZK3xIuzQGYx3GRAvm0W3gBWDJV2AHmZti9Ad7HVqibogel4A==
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 23:22:25 +0200
Message-ID: <0a344270616df2c33c8a1f5db2df08a0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Leverton <leverton@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <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: Matthew Leverton [mailto:leverton@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 11:17 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Jordi Boggiano; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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@.
> >
> Controversial RFCs are precisely the ones that SHOULD be voted on.

Not really.  These should be avoided as much as possible.

> Policy states that 2/3s means consensus on core language changes. The
> current 63.5% isn't too far from that. Just curious, but do you have a
> different number in mind for this vote? 90%? 80%?

I'm well aware of it as I wrote that policy.  The goal of the policy was to
prevent a situation where a temporary majority can introduce features into
the language that would later on be impossible to reverse.  It's not by any
stretch a good mechanism to solve controversial votes, which again, should
ideally be avoided as much as possible.  It's just that there isn't a better
mechanism.

Zeev