Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82615
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACwt+JdHCYYVMbuuAZ73N_sfOkQHJ7_EkOtPWtqJcNW7Xgjn3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <EE83CD8A-BAFA-43AC-8CD0-5F123BF96299@ajf.me> <93453174-E6A8-47C6-8AB6-A08858A7FC05@zend.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:23:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CACwt+Je57+WD0cgbuZ9DVkWt_FdSZy_dz9bK_-wr4b6ZqfbW3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133625466fd23050ef8f9da
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
From: patrickallaert@php.net (Patrick ALLAERT)

--001a1133625466fd23050ef8f9da
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Le Fri Feb 13 2015 at 12:34:29, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> a =C3=A9crit :

>
> On 13 =D7=91=D7=A4=D7=91=D7=A8=D7=B3 2015, at 13:13, Andrea Faulds <ajf@a=
jf.me> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 13 Feb 2015, at 09:37, Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net> wrote:
>
>
> Voted "no" because of the reasons already mentioned by a bunch of others
> here.
>
>
> Weak type hint as presented earlier: +1 (and very good job Andrea about
> that!).
>
> declare(strict_types=3D1): -1, not only about the syntax, but also about =
the
> mixed mode it introduces.
>
>
> I'm pretty confident that this RFC will "pass" with just above 2/3 of
> majority while it could reach much more.
>
>
> 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)=
,
> it would have some "no" converted to "yes" and would have a wider adoptio=
n,
> which is for sure a better option than relying on a voting mechanism whic=
h
> still is a supporting tool, we're not politicians after all :)
>
>
> It wouldn=E2=80=99t have wider adoption. Excluding a large portion of the=
 PHP
> community (which favours strict types) and giving them something which
> doesn=E2=80=99t work for their use cases (weak types) is not going to win=
 any fans.
>
>
> Any fans?  Really?
>
> How about we put it to a test instead of guessing the outcome?
>

I'm wondering who would change their vote from "no" to "yes" if we consider
a related, but separate, RFC for handling types in a more "strict" way. I
most probably would!

I guess (I don't pretend being in everyone's head), that few would do the
opposite: changing their "yes" to "no" because of that.

That is a lot of "guess" (whatever the sides) and measuring the opinions
would be more appropriate IMHO.

Cheers and have a nice WE everyone!
Patrick

--001a1133625466fd23050ef8f9da--