Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82290
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.213.176 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> <b447c382a180aef16bccedcc734c41e0@mail.gmail.com>
 <54D7F972.4010107@seld.be> <2013B2A4-74E6-4452-8A48-E749DCBEA2EF@zend.com> <6C020C7F-85C0-4C88-8766-48CEDA6290F8@ajf.me>
In-Reply-To: <6C020C7F-85C0-4C88-8766-48CEDA6290F8@ajf.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
thread-index: AQJMIZG9mXkdirFXmuP9r5ZK3xIuzQGYx3GRAvm0W3gBWDJV2AHmZti9AnGGQJ4CcpIjHAGnfRhxAb8Yx4YB98REegGte5njAZG+himbRjeA4A==
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 19:03:09 +0200
Message-ID: <3399a072b6cb66434e72c5f5b37d5df0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:ajf@ajf.me]
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 12:44 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Jordi Boggiano; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
>
> Hi,
>
> > On 9 Feb 2015, at 03:48, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
> >
> > A - has pretty much everybody agreeing with is a good idea.  Nobody
> objects to it.  It's under consensus.
>
> This isn't true. I've explained why it isn't true several times. Maybe
you are
> suffering from confirmation bias or something, but there is no such
> "consensus". Quite a few internals contributors liked v0.1. Quite a few
didn't.
> I've gone and evidenced this before in replies sent directly to you.

Andrea,

I'll make an absolute last attempt to explain what I'm saying, after that
we can agree to disagree.  We probably interpret the same facts
differently.

Fact is, there were very few people who said that weak types are *bad*
(although Sebastian seems to fall in that category).  The vast majority of
feedback that 'opposed' weak typing, didn't really oppose weak typing at
all.  What it opposed was, rather, the lack of introducing strict typing.
That is clearly not the same thing, which is why the fact there were
people who opposed v0.1 of the RFC does not equate with people opposing
weak typing, not at all.

Each and every person that voted in favor of the v0.3 RFC, voted in favor
of weak typing.  Weak typing is not only a key element of that RFC - it's
even the default behavior.  In addition to everyone who voted in favor of
the v0.3 RFC, many - most probably most of the people who voted against
it- are in favor of the weak typing API.  If you combine the two groups,
you're going to get to nearly 100% support, or arguably, 'lack of
opposition', to the weak typing proposal.

So I stand by my comment, which has nothing to do with confirmation bias
but is based on simple facts, that there's consensus (or near consensus)
about weak typing being acceptable into the language.   Of course, many of
the people in the strict typing camp are not actively supportive of the
weak typing part, but they also don't oppose it.  Again, the fact they
voted in favor of adding them attests to that.

The controversy is exclusively around strict typing.  It goes both ways -
proponents of strict typing feel very passionate about having to introduce
it into the language;  Opponents seem to feel equally passionate about not
adding them.

I hope that clarifies my previous statements and put that part of the
discussion to rest.

Zeev