Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82291
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.46 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3399a072b6cb66434e72c5f5b37d5df0@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>
	<54D7F972.4010107@seld.be>
	<2013B2A4-74E6-4452-8A48-E749DCBEA2EF@zend.com>
	<6C020C7F-85C0-4C88-8766-48CEDA6290F8@ajf.me>
	<3399a072b6cb66434e72c5f5b37d5df0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:12:19 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU64_xCsT1BH7ucW92Kz-=QXLBj89-QsGminc2Fq5m-30A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c129687a0a14050eaadf07
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--001a11c129687a0a14050eaadf07
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Feb 10, 2015 12:03 AM, "Zeev Suraski" <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>
> > -----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.

Oh wait. So the waste majority actually willing this RFC actually want
another? This is fantastic....

Anyway, no worry, opposed ppl managed to get this amazing RFC shot down.
Prepare your own to do exactly what you want, how you want, many will
accept it as default choice despite it being a poor choice. A deja vu
feeling is popping up in my mind. Well played.

--001a11c129687a0a14050eaadf07--