Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82298
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain devilix.net designates 209.85.214.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54D8ECCF.4000202@seld.be>
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>
	<54D8ECCF.4000202@seld.be>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 20:02:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPhkiZyYP2CEiR8FqG8nCm8JGcoH5EfgcNm+PXx2SAst=eQMCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jordi Boggiano <j.boggiano@seld.be>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
From: narf@devilix.net (Andrey Andreev)

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Jordi Boggiano <j.boggiano@seld.be> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I am in the "between black and white" camp and this RFC doesn't give
me what I want, nor did the 0.1 version of it.
I would vote 'no' on both if I had voting privileges.

Please, all, stop speculating and just let the votes count.

Cheers,
Andrey.