Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82300
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.172 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: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:57:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CABDNdAFzSbC5VLrJ7r3SQKp+mE_ji9QrWvszXj4ZFMeT2oDB4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
From: pjsturgeon@gmail.com (Philip Sturgeon)

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:03 PM, 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 o=
f
> 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.

Woah there Zeev, please take your words out of my mouth, and out of
the mouths of 48 other people.

I voted Yes for this RFC because default weak and optional strict is a
perfectly PHP-way=E2=84=A2 to get this job done.

You really have to stop speaking for other people, or this
conversation is going to go off the rails for eternity. We can speak
for ourselves.