Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82284 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 55084 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2015 14:26:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 Feb 2015 14:26:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=mailing@pascal-martin.fr; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=mailing@pascal-martin.fr; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain pascal-martin.fr designates 91.121.85.26 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: mailing@pascal-martin.fr X-Host-Fingerprint: 91.121.85.26 ns362529.ip-91-121-85.eu Received: from [91.121.85.26] ([91.121.85.26:57107] helo=pascal-martin.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F0/84-50460-993C8D45 for ; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:26:34 -0500 Received: from [192.168.10.8] (teaebook.pck.nerim.net [213.41.140.246]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pascal-martin.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A5561E0F27 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:26:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <54D8C395.8020609@pascal-martin.fr> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:26:29 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; 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> In-Reply-To: <8703B53E-2C4A-4AC6-95C4-D4F19C6D5221@ajf.me> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints From: mailing@pascal-martin.fr (Pascal MARTIN) Le 05/02/2015 21:14, Andrea Faulds a écrit : > At long last, I’m going to put the RFC to a vote. It’s been long enough - I don’t think there needs to be, or will be, much further discussion. > > I’d like to make sure that everyone voting understands the RFC fully. Please read the RFC in full: the details are important. And if anyone has any questions or uncertainties, please ask them before voting. I am very happy to answer them. > > I would urge everyone who wants type hints to vote for this RFC. It is not a perfect solution, but there can be no perfect solution to this issue. However, I think it is better than most of the alternatives suggested thus far - see the rationale section, and previous discussions. Crucially, this RFC would keep PHP a weakly-typed language, and not force either strict typing, nor weak typing, on anyone who does not want it. It would allow the addition of type hints to existing codebases. It would not create a situation where userland functions are strict yet internal functions are not, because the strict mode affects both. I’ve tested the implementation myself on my own code, and it worked well, providing benefits other proposals would not have given (see my previous post about my experiences). > Hi, Just to let you know, I've written a post about this RFC on my blog, trying to present what it brings to the table and to explain why I like it: http://blog.pascal-martin.fr/post/in-favor-of-rfc-scalar-type-hints.html Maybe another way of presenting things might help some people here to decide whether or not they think this RFC is helpful. Even if I've published this earlier today, I've written it between Thursday and Friday, so it doesn't really take into account the new ideas (new syntax propositions) that have been posted since. Please note this is *my* personal opinion, and doesn't necessarily reflect the opinion of any organization I am affiliated with. Pascal. -- Pascal MARTIN http://blog.pascal-martin.fr @pascal_martin