Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82292
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain seld.be designates 74.125.82.176 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <54D8ECCF.4000202@seld.be>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:22:23 +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> <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>
In-Reply-To: <3399a072b6cb66434e72c5f5b37d5df0@mail.gmail.com>
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 09/02/2015 17:03, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> 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.

The problem is: what's in it for the strict camp to vote yes for a v0.1 
that offers no guarantee that strict hints will be added later nor in 
which form that would happen?

If there is no guarantee, having weak hints in the language is actually 
a bad thing for them since it might mean strict ones never materialize.

> 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.

As per my answers above, I don't think this is true, unless they have no 
clue how politics work.

> 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.

And that is exactly why this RFC is great, since it lets the 
strict-proponents have their strict types in their files, but those 
preferring weak ones can remain in the default weak mode, never see an 
ugly declare(), and still call strict code in weak mode.

That is why I don't quite understand the "no" votes coming from 
weak-hints proponents. Unless of course you would prefer to pass 
weak-only v0.1 and then shoot down any attempt at strict hints. That 
strikes me as quite selfish though, given the strict-proponents isn't 
such a tiny group of people.

And then there are the people sitting somewhere in between the black and 
white camps. Those that would like to use strict sometimes for some 
critical code paths, and for them the proposed solution is quite good as 
well.

Cheers

-- 
Jordi Boggiano
@seldaek - http://nelm.io/jordi