Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82985 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 91154 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2015 16:42:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Feb 2015 16:42:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@golemon.com; sender-id=softfail Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@golemon.com; spf=softfail; sender-id=softfail Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.217.181 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@golemon.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.217.181 mail-lb0-f181.google.com Received: from [209.85.217.181] ([209.85.217.181:42133] helo=mail-lb0-f181.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 60/B4-19463-96F63E45 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:42:17 -0500 Received: by lbiw7 with SMTP id w7so5564827lbi.9 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 08:42:13 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ayj9pncCFEjpXKR7aN0oaA3bisgJ2TBa7iBaEIg9CrY=; b=dp70KwBmdNChAXfWB/PpwQTJSqqFqAJB+LTTh9HH6WQbPBZ95Jb6cMtOoFl8nek653 i0OirpBuyjMA5+WPzUu9awI5GNSk1OE5hDNuhZ2cIVsWqP02yOmX6KyHONqbjXhCvYO+ OArGFF3ebjLyuCOF15tBTYpYajrNqZ8f8skzBd0OAvWbeRyImjX9+kfxJPj7pB+VQs26 HEddQnmISl/sbki+Y33Y7uczp9n2uyOcT11jZTr+UZzYrg4JL/+SBHQWntC77nFTS0UH X1jxYBBMrKAgvEJfczHDrBquWELrBqRk1x6PuwVay75fG1KzuGqvbBYPhE9skEPRR9/f Vbug== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnne5FKYAL1hbgrDdPrULiqTL0nmz8vZVKp/ZRROdK7i+Ep2PzAHkZbTCwx8OFNdAi9ht2V MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.114.230 with SMTP id jj6mr29241243lbb.112.1424191333627; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 08:42:13 -0800 (PST) Sender: php@golemon.com Received: by 10.112.126.65 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 08:42:13 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [199.201.64.2] In-Reply-To: References: <011801d04a07$83ab1c00$8b015400$@php.net> <016f01d04a3a$e9183220$bb489660$@php.net> <54E290E5.3020508@lerdorf.com> <54E2AD88.6040206@lerdorf.com> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 08:42:13 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tDb7vT0LiMO8SZvnqRvQsRFhfrc Message-ID: To: Leigh Cc: Rasmus Lerdorf , francois@php.net, Philip Sturgeon , Arvids Godjuks , Jefferson Gonzalez , Rowan Collins , PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Reviving scalar type hints From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon) On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Leigh wrote: > On 17 February 2015 at 05:48, Sara Golemon wrote: >>>> We can sigh and tut about this not being "the PHP way", but the script >>>> author was the one who chose to enter into a tight contract, and the >>>> script author, not you, is the one who should have that authority over >>>> their own application. >>> >>> I find this view way too extreme. >>> >> You find giving authority over an application to the application >> author too extreme? > > And you find taking authority over a library away from the library > author completely acceptable? > I'm not suggesting taking authority of the library away from its author, so you question is invalid. > If I write an API that works perfectly well in strict mode, why > shouldn't I be able to turn strict on for my whole library? Do I just > tell users that non-strict mode constitutes undefined behavior for > this library, and refuse to fix any bugs that come up because of it? > This RFC allows you to turn on strict for your library. What it doesn't do is allow you to turn on strict for the calling application. What's yours is yours, what's theirs is theirs. -Sara