Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82293
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.200 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
In-Reply-To: <3399a072b6cb66434e72c5f5b37d5df0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 17:38:49 +0000
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <25F0544D-1076-4227-B78C-763086C7CF5B@ajf.me>
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>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)

Hi Zeev,

> On 9 Feb 2015, at 17:03, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.

First off, it=E2=80=99s really unfair to claim that merely because =
someone votes for this RFC, that they are okay with weak typing. It=E2=80=99=
s a compromise proposal: I=E2=80=99m not a big fan of weak typing, not =
by any means, and plenty of other people aren=E2=80=99t either, but this =
RFC allows me to use strict typing and others to use weak typing, =
without us getting in each other=E2=80=99s way. So, I am in favour of =
this RFC. I *do not like* weak typing. But I am willing to vote for and =
push for this RFC, if it means we=E2=80=99ll get scalar types somehow =
(and, crucially, it allows *strict* scalar types). People who are in =
favour of this RFC are *not* necessarily in favour of weak types, or =
adding weak types on their own.

Anyway, to the main point. I=E2=80=99m pretty sure that you=E2=80=99re =
wrong in saying that the vast majority of the people who opposed the =
introduction of weak scalar types, and *only* weak scalar types in the =
v0.1 RFC, were actually okay with weak typing. That does not go with my =
experiences at all. =46rom what I have seen, a large number of people =
are opposed to weakly-typed parameters, period.

But let=E2=80=99s assume that you=E2=80=99re correct for a moment. =
Let=E2=80=99s say that, hypothetically, 100% of the people in the v0.1 =
thread (absolute consensus, then) had no opposition to the idea of weak =
typing, and the only complaint anyone had was that strict typing =
wasn=E2=80=99t also being added.

This doesn=E2=80=99t help your case. In fact, it hurts it.

Firstly, while there may be this hypothetical consensus around weak =
types, the v0.1 RFC showed there was definitely NOT consensus around =
adding weak types *on their own*. Yet that was what you are arguing: =
that their would be consensus, or is consensus, around just adding weak =
types. So, merely adding weak types, and not strict types, is not =
something there=E2=80=99s a consensus on, and is not something everyone =
can agree on, despite what you have been arguing.

Secondly, you are saying that the only opposition to v0.1 was that it =
did not also introduce strict types. So, therefore, this new version of =
the RFC which introduces strict typing alongside weak typing, should =
surely be more popular, no?

I do not understand your logic.

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/