Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82898
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain devilix.net designates 209.85.214.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+9eiLsEbbp2dQ+2Wt2GWBrzEOZGMXK-zBdmBinS=j0wjafXng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <011801d04a07$83ab1c00$8b015400$@php.net>
	<CA+9eiLsEbbp2dQ+2Wt2GWBrzEOZGMXK-zBdmBinS=j0wjafXng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 00:38:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPhkiZxwJb7jTUV55=e=hbtPd6-xNWjpCxuODx7_gOkyetcB3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Cc: francois@php.net, Arvids Godjuks <arvids.godjuks@gmail.com>, 
	Jefferson Gonzalez <jgmdev@gmail.com>, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Reviving scalar type hints
From: narf@devilix.net (Andrey Andreev)

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:
>
> I would propose exactly Andrea's 0.1.
> Most people were agree to support weak type hints by default.
> This proposal won't prevent feature addition of optional strict type hints.

Sorry, but I'll have to repeat what has been said over and over again
- the 0.1 version did not have overwhelming support and quite a lot of
people aren't OK with (only) weak type hints.

Part of the rationale behind the 0.2+ versions was that it would be
unfair to strict typing supporters if weak is accepted alone. I agree
with that on 100% (although I didn't agree with the proposed solution)
and it's not hard to imagine why ...

Also, IMO the only way a weak-types addition will NOT prevent strict
type-hints in the future is to use the foo((type) $bar) syntax that
was proposed by Anthony Ferrara 2 years ago. The syntax itself being
different from that of already existing class type-hints implies both
that it's a weak hint and that strict typing is expected to be
available in the future (although I see no reason to delay it). In no
other way excluding weird strict/weak modes or a regexp-like syntax
will you be able to add both features.

> All are tired from endless arguing.

That's not a reason to force-in a feature until it's clear that it is
what we all (or at least most) really want. I hated seeing so much
people supporting a proposal that they admit to not like, just so we
have something at all - I don't believe that's the right approach,
especially coming from tech people.

Cheers,
Andrey.