Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82986
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAPhkiZxpYbaPN1370_HFTVnBA=Jg-rU8DrB2P+2dmRcJfGWPtw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:50:35 +0200
Cc: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <2CBDEB67-3DE3-437D-9AF3-0E6A92027244@zend.com>
References: <011801d04a07$83ab1c00$8b015400$@php.net> <CABDNdAFQsbo-A-gijPCwYDOf3ts-yKpP0tAL--WUaLU26GB-AQ@mail.gmail.com> <016f01d04a3a$e9183220$bb489660$@php.net> <CAESVnVoM7YbmXA8hTG1O66j+6YX3Xx2Q3uj_F=TPjHA4ws=8JA@mail.gmail.com> <d8031ce52e9965c789887e8f7b687a4e@mail.gmail.com> <CAESVnVpA+M6iv_zbDmKTEF8Q1zKjwnbi1ucc=UyuUyRr+X+U3w@mail.gmail.com> <022801d04ab1$4a0c47d0$de24d770$@php.net> <1913e09d7f52541901d8574d2080a63f@mail.gmail.com> <CAAyV7nFD=BQ5dBYiKzhbOKTomKmWvruTnb=R_n9mYB-Lz1P9pg@mail.gmail.com> <7a5d96b34b98ec1f3ee17be7fa6a1e81@mail.gmail.com> <CAPhkiZxpYbaPN1370_HFTVnBA=Jg-rU8DrB2P+2dmRcJfGWPtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Reviving scalar type hints
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)


> On 17 =D7=91=D7=A4=D7=91=D7=A8=D7=B3 2015, at 18:32, Andrey Andreev <narf@=
devilix.net> wrote:
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> If it gave both sides exactly what they wanted, how come it generated so
>> much objection?
>>=20
>> Simply put, because it absolutely doesn't give both sides what they wante=
d.
>> Many (most?) of those who opposed it opposed it because they believe maki=
ng
>> zval.type as prominently available as the RFC did is bad for PHP.
>> Consequently, this whole 'adding both gives everyone what they want' is
>> simply wrong.
>=20
> I agree that it doesn't give everybody what they want - it only gave
> weak hint supporters *all* that they want.

Andrey,

I'm a weak typing supporter;  I want PHP to never make it easy at the langua=
ge level to treat "32" and 32 differently;  The RFC did exactly that.

-> The v0.3 RFC didn't give weak hint supporters everything they wanted.  QE=
D.

> Many also objected because strict typing was only opt-in and could
> never affect the caller's code unless the caller explicitly declares
> that they want to do that. You're ignoring that and you're twisting it
> the other way around.

It's enough to provide one counter example to disprove an assertion - the as=
sertion that the v0.3 RFC gave everyone what they wanted - and I provided th=
e one I can personally attest to.  I certainly didn't claim strict typing su=
pporters got everything they wanted, so I'm not sure why I'm twisting anythi=
ng.  If anything, you're only making the point that the v0.3 RFC doesn't giv=
e everyone what they want stronger.

I think the options we're discussing here take us away from this zero sum ga=
me, provides benefits to both schools of thought, and it seems to me as if y=
ou were open to it.  I'd much rather we invested our energies there!

Zeev=