Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82192
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.223.177 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>
 <74136F1E-817F-4A33-8228-B47045DD65C3@ajf.me> <54D7EB44.9010005@gmail.com> <D82F028B-B730-45A9-BFA6-1E63D9E1B332@ajf.me>
In-Reply-To: <D82F028B-B730-45A9-BFA6-1E63D9E1B332@ajf.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
thread-index: AQJMIZG9mXkdirFXmuP9r5ZK3xIuzQGYx3GRAvm0W3gBWDJV2AHmZti9AnGGQJ4CcpIjHAGnfRhxm3zBY1A=
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 01:24:06 +0200
Message-ID: <b447c382a180aef16bccedcc734c41e0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, smalyshev@gmail.com
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> 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 i=
n
> 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 internal=
s
> 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 hint=
ing
> discussions
> which haven=E2=80=99t had some controversy.

It's not stretching the truth or even slightly bending it, considering the
RFC currently being voted on is a superset of that RFC.

There's zero or virtually zero controversy surrounding the weak typing RFC,
the one that was v0.1.  The controversy wasn't (and isn't) about what was i=
n
v0.1, but rather, about what wasn't in there, namely, strict typing;  Not i=
n
the contents of the v0.1 RFC itself, which, again, had zero controversy
around and is effectively being voted on as an integral part of the current
RFC.  You have virtually all of the supporters of strict typing voting in
favor of the current RFC, also voting in favor of the v0.1 elements which
are an integral part of it.

The way it should have went is voting on the weak typing RFC, around which
there was (and probably still is) almost consensus.  Right afterwards, vote
on the strict elements that you added in v0.2.

That would have been the one way to know what the voter base truly thinks.
Right now, I believe many people are voting in favor thinking that otherwis=
e
we'd get nothing, and again - pretty much nobody is supportive of 'nothing'=
.

Zeev