Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82203
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.180 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b447c382a180aef16bccedcc734c41e0@mail.gmail.com>
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>
	<b447c382a180aef16bccedcc734c41e0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 07:10:55 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU4+8nymhininmzJJKk2yW-zez02HCW-30_J3-xGPg1gNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, 
	PHP internals <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: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Zeev Suraski <zee@zend.com> wrote:
>> 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 interna=
ls
>> 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 hin=
ting
>> discussions
>> which haven=E2=80=99t had some controversy.
>
> It's not stretching the truth or even slightly bending it, considering th=
e
> RFC currently being voted on is a superset of that RFC.
>
> There's zero or virtually zero controversy surrounding the weak typing RF=
C,
> 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 curre=
nt
> 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 whic=
h
> there was (and probably still is) almost consensus.  Right afterwards, vo=
te
> 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 otherw=
ise
> we'd get nothing, and again - pretty much nobody is supportive of 'nothin=
g'.

Zeev, we know it by now. You do not like it. And given past
experiences nothing, virtually nothng, tells me that you will accept
anything anyway. There is a vote, you do not like the RFC or part of
it, vote no. But this constant attempt to get exactly what you want
and do almost everything possible to get it is getting very counter
productive. Not the first time but hopefully the last.


Cheers,
--=20
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org