Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82995
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.223.174 as permitted sender)
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>
	<2CBDEB67-3DE3-437D-9AF3-0E6A92027244@zend.com> <CAPhkiZwcD3h42=9eak4uP9n2GBE=v0LVP6Ncq9Oz7L91dJ5y5w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPhkiZwcD3h42=9eak4uP9n2GBE=v0LVP6Ncq9Oz7L91dJ5y5w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQGD0sLDaA+/0NIeBlQhQC5OtPA/xwHih9+6AanvcsEBj7eMCwEU0CpMAs0H7+gBDwGZjwJNu28fAX8sxVQAox2RWwKtsa6+Ap7Ai84CNkZj6pzeFDMg
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:30:44 +0200
Message-ID: <4cc0c81c7199a452534bb8edcdb19914@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Reviving scalar type hints
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> Yes, I already know that.
> The difference, and why I keep pointing that out, is that me and many
> others
> want strict typing for our own reasons (but still in its entirety instead
> of as a
> limited mode) and most of us don't even care if you getting weak typing
> for
> your own usage. You can't work towards consensus if your target is to
> prevent the opposing group of getting what they want. I see both as
> valuable
> tools for different jobs and I want to have more tools at my disposal,
> while
> you're trying to tell me that I should use only one tool for everything.

First, it's very important to understand that my target is to prevent the
opposing group from getting what they want.  I'm really not sadistic :)  My
reasons were obviously different and worked towards a different goal.  Much
in the same way that people who vote against an RFC - one of the countless
that were voted against - don't do that to hurt the ones who support it.
They do it because they think adding it would bring negative consequences.
I never believed the 'You don't have to use it' as a silver bullet
explanation for why it's OK to add features with potentially negative
implications.

The good news is that I think that in many ways the ideas we're toying with
right now are better for the strict-type camp, especially if we end up going
for just one mode, and meet roughly mid-way in terms of strict and weak -
which I think is doable.  The biggest gripes strict campers had with weak
mode are gone in this proposal, and unlike v0.3 - that would actually be the
default (and only) behavior, which is a big gain for the strict campers.
And the most prominent features of weak typing are kept (dynamic type
conversion where it makes sense), hopefully making the weak campers happy
too.

> But you implied that most objections were from people who don't want
> strict
> typing in PHP at all. And I disagree with that because it's a speculation,
> which
> in turn you are using to favor your weak-hints-only case (hence, twisting
> it in
> another direction).

I didn't imply it now (at least I certainly didn't intend to).  I did
outright say it a week or two ago, and still believe that's the case but
reached the conclusion that none of us would gain anything from further
discussing it.  We won't know unless we start actually polling the people
who voted and ask, which we're not going to do, and we're obviously not
going to convince each other.  Much more importantly, it at least *seems* as
if we have a direction for something that a very wide audience may rally
behind.  Let's focus on that!

Zeev