Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82198 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 91360 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2015 00:04:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 Feb 2015 00:04:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=j.boggiano@seld.be; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=j.boggiano@seld.be; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain seld.be designates 209.85.212.178 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: j.boggiano@seld.be X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.212.178 mail-wi0-f178.google.com Received: from [209.85.212.178] ([209.85.212.178:45232] helo=mail-wi0-f178.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id BF/BC-26926-F69F7D45 for ; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 19:04:04 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hm9so2332003wib.5 for ; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 16:03:57 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=PMLOdopkEWKbydJ1wBfQ0yCqROTe6ep2YCM4QrciHRM=; b=XNOYGIWWAATtxksb5wxFzlNxLEZxFDnhkeIHCKzJBMLRxDRZISTSwqaTXhS7erUHUC HbIZX0vtfWqXWqNLTWZg7jAotDOPYkfLYkd678RBUBo5B3Ii6WM2P0bBxb2esBRNSaCk 62E2JIP7AElO23PmpjVOzi9uG1GVkc6aVhOcXTx4SCgdkMq5DrE1c+ov7uMLSyqGTa6e 13kM4t3/CVMg+SMgs+8zsKQxxFjX1LO89Q5zBrZ6547dLtFTWY0cLP4OIO4qFVnTC8n+ 4p3/XBa0Eho4lAiH9jszx285/p219c58jBZW3fTXjWPa8kUrrwyBKR78/rZKTqMSsmM/ t44g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm9+/VRFHI1lrw+Fna/og1p/I5zn9WCKSLQu/sm2G/G0Sx5Mzw4VCIyDs69fTBsBlJlQQtI X-Received: by 10.194.104.196 with SMTP id gg4mr34532651wjb.31.1423440237209; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 16:03:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.85] ([87.112.217.174]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id uo6sm13907966wjc.49.2015.02.08.16.03.55 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 08 Feb 2015 16:03:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54D7F972.4010107@seld.be> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 00:04:02 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints From: j.boggiano@seld.be (Jordi Boggiano) On 08/02/2015 23:24, Zeev Suraski wrote: > 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 in > v0.1, but rather, about what wasn't in there, namely, strict typing; Not in > 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. By this logic, the current proposal also does not take anything away from weak-typing proponents (which I guess I am a part of FWIW). It lets everyone be happy in their corner. I don't see how this is worse than one side winning by ignoring the other. Cheers -- Jordi Boggiano @seldaek - http://nelm.io/jordi