Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82913
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.46 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: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:20:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU6HnwL+HuqzDNWDD=PBGVHf+kPjYoyvV4YaUuTSnm8Nxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Cc: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	Arvids Godjuks <arvids.godjuks@gmail.com>, Jefferson Gonzalez <jgmdev@gmail.com>, francois@php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11343a4c9123c4050f3e83c3
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Reviving scalar type hints
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--001a11343a4c9123c4050f3e83c3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Feb 16, 2015 10:56 AM, "Dmitry Stogov" <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Fran=C3=A7ois Laupretre <francois@php.ne=
t>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > >
> > > De : Arvids Godjuks [mailto:arvids.godjuks@gmail.com]
> > >
> > > The 0.1 RFC version was mentioned a lot as a good compromise by many
> > > people
> > > and had major support.
> > > Maybe someone competent could pick it up, make necessary adjustments
> > > that
> > > where required and let people vote on it? Start with small steps - ge=
t
> > the
> > > weak type hints into the language first, see how it gets used and
then we
> > > can always add strict type hints if there is a need/desire to do that=
.
> > >
> > > That way we finally get type hints into the language, and those
wanting
> > the
> > > strict variety have all the opportunities in the world to add them at
a
> > > later release with proper discussion and development time.
> >
> > That's what I am planning. If I write an RFC, it will be based on
Andrea's
> > 0.1/0.2 version, and won't propose different modes.
> >
>
> I would propose exactly Andrea's 0.1.
> Most people were agree to support weak type hints by default.

So a 50/50 vote is most people in favor of one type? Sorry, this is not the
case.

> This proposal won't prevent feature addition of optional strict type
hints.
> All are tired from endless arguing.

Yes, we are. The only difference is one camp makes compromises and tried to
find solutions. Now, deja vu scenario, we are heading exactly to what you
want because we do not have any other solution. A by default single choice
is not good. This is a very bad move.

--001a11343a4c9123c4050f3e83c3--