Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82188 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 76293 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2015 23:08:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 Feb 2015 23:08:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.199 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.64.116.199 imap11-2.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [192.64.116.199] ([192.64.116.199:34989] helo=imap11-2.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 04/B9-26926-58CE7D45 for ; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 18:08:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5897F8800DA; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 18:08:50 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap11.ox.privateemail.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap11.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id g54Fe92uCOIV; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 18:08:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from oa-res-26-240.wireless.abdn.ac.uk (oa-res-26-240.wireless.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.26.240]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91BF38800D5; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 18:08:48 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) In-Reply-To: <54D7EB44.9010005@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 23:08:45 +0000 Cc: Zeev Suraski , Jordi Boggiano , internals@lists.php.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <8703B53E-2C4A-4AC6-95C4-D4F19C6D5221@ajf.me> <54D5659D.5000602@php.net> <54D7A6DB.3050209@seld.be> <74136F1E-817F-4A33-8228-B47045DD65C3@ajf.me> <54D7EB44.9010005@gmail.com> To: Stanislav Malyshev X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) Hi, > On 8 Feb 2015, at 23:03, Stanislav Malyshev = wrote: >=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> Please stop repeating this, it is blatantly false and I=E2=80=99ve = pointed this out several times. >=20 > How is it false? Did we have a vote on v1? What was the result of the = vote? No, we didn=E2=80=99t. But the statement =E2=80=9Czero controversy=E2=80=9D= implies that, well=E2=80=A6 let=E2=80=99s look up what controversy = means: > argument that involves many people who strongly disagree about = something : strong disagreement about something among a large group of = people (Merriam-Webster) So, controversy is where a lot of people disagree - and there were = numerous people in the original thread who disagreed with the RFC and = preferred strict types. I actually tallied them in a reply to Zeev = (which I later quoted in a reply to Andi). There were almost as many = people against the proposal as in favour. This is to say nothing as to = how it was received outside internals which, from my experience on = reddit, Twitter and StackOverflow, was even less positive than = internals, considerably so. So, I think that to say that there was =E2=80=9Czero controversy=E2=80=9D = is certainly stretching the truth. Really, I=E2=80=99m yet to see any = scalar type hinting discussions which haven=E2=80=99t had some = controversy. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/