Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82603
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary=Apple-Mail-61BA7AF0-BBF4-46E2-965A-3F474DF89DBD
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <EE83CD8A-BAFA-43AC-8CD0-5F123BF96299@ajf.me>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:34:09 +0200
Cc: Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net>,
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <93453174-E6A8-47C6-8AB6-A08858A7FC05@zend.com>
References: <CACwt+JdHCYYVMbuuAZ73N_sfOkQHJ7_EkOtPWtqJcNW7Xgjn3w@mail.gmail.com> <EE83CD8A-BAFA-43AC-8CD0-5F123BF96299@ajf.me>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

--Apple-Mail-61BA7AF0-BBF4-46E2-965A-3F474DF89DBD
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


> On 13 =D7=91=D7=A4=D7=91=D7=A8=D7=B3 2015, at 13:13, Andrea Faulds <ajf@aj=
f.me> wrote:
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
>> On 13 Feb 2015, at 09:37, Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net> wrote:=

>>=20
>> Voted "no" because of the reasons already mentioned by a bunch of others h=
ere.
>>=20
>> Weak type hint as presented earlier: +1 (and very good job Andrea about t=
hat!).
>> declare(strict_types=3D1): -1, not only about the syntax, but also about t=
he mixed mode it introduces.
>>=20
>> I'm pretty confident that this RFC will "pass" with just above 2/3 of maj=
ority while it could reach much more.
>>=20
>> I am pretty sure that if this RFC doesn't include a strict type mode _the=
 way it is proposed_ (or even, not at all, as part of another related RFC), i=
t would have some "no" converted to "yes" and would have a wider adoption, w=
hich is for sure a better option than relying on a voting mechanism which st=
ill is a supporting tool, we're not politicians after all :)
>=20
> It wouldn=E2=80=99t have wider adoption. Excluding a large portion of the P=
HP community (which favours strict types) and giving them something which do=
esn=E2=80=99t work for their use cases (weak types) is not going to win any f=
ans.

Any fans?  Really?

How about we put it to a test instead of guessing the outcome?

Zeev


--Apple-Mail-61BA7AF0-BBF4-46E2-965A-3F474DF89DBD--