Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82899
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <francois@php.net>
To: "'Philip Sturgeon'" <pjsturgeon@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Arvids Godjuks'" <arvids.godjuks@gmail.com>,
	"'Jefferson Gonzalez'" <jgmdev@gmail.com>,
	"'Rowan Collins'" <rowan.collins@gmail.com>,
	"'PHP internals'" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <011801d04a07$83ab1c00$8b015400$@php.net> <CABDNdAFQsbo-A-gijPCwYDOf3ts-yKpP0tAL--WUaLU26GB-AQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABDNdAFQsbo-A-gijPCwYDOf3ts-yKpP0tAL--WUaLU26GB-AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:50:06 +0100
Message-ID: <016f01d04a3a$e9183220$bb489660$@php.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQGD0sLDaA+/0NIeBlQhQC5OtPA/xwHih9+6nX2zslA=
Content-Language: fr
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Reviving scalar type hints
From: francois@php.net (=?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=)

> De : Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturgeon@gmail.com]
>
> I know it is very easy for people to say "Well, that v0.3 that I
> didn't like has been withdrawn, so let's just crack on and do some
> other new thing.

It's not so easy. It would be easier to do as you suggest. And you can =
still do it in your name.

Andrea's had agreed we should write a follow-up RFC to solve open issues =
we had identified. This is what I am proposing here, nothing more.

It is not some 'other new thing'. It's mostly a way to bring =
strict-typing fans back to consensus. Of course, you may find it =
useless...

> " but I would have to ask people to consider that v0.3
> had two thirds majority, with a few people clearly admitting that
> their No vote was down to declare.

Even if we got 4 or 5 people change their mind because of a new declare =
syntax, it is clear that we don't have consensus on this topic. So, IMO, =
the RFC is dead, whatever 2/3 or 3/4 we may have. Once it was clear that =
both camps would never agree, with every PHP founders against it, =
pushing it was useless. We're not electing a president, we're trying to =
ensure we make the right decision. The spirit is not the same.

> So, if declare is the only thing blocking v0.3 from passing, despite
> 1/3rd of voters being sad about it, let's just go down that road
> instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water and coming up
> with some new approach that will be bike-shedded over until PHP 8 is
> in feature freeze.

I am also writing this because I think the two-mode approach is by far =
not the best one, as it would probably generate a lot of side effects we =
don't even imagine now. I voted 'yes' because I thought that was nice to =
have it in PHP 7 instead of nothing but, now, the RFC is dead and I am =
free to propose what I have in mind, especially in the hope that it can =
bring a consensus where it is lacking.

Once again, anyone can take over version 0.3, if it is so great. Why =
don't you do it ? I will play the game, stop working on my proposal, and =
vote 'yes' again. But don't ask me to do it in your place.

Regards

Fran=C3=A7ois