Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83132
Return-Path: <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 67491 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2015 22:37:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 18 Feb 2015 22:37:11 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ircmaxell@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ircmaxell@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.43 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ircmaxell@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.215.43 mail-la0-f43.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.215.43] ([209.85.215.43:34917] helo=mail-la0-f43.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 72/9E-25021-51415E45 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:37:10 -0500
Received: by labgm9 with SMTP id gm9so4373223lab.2
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:37:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        bh=ZEoJPQs/dEWTox8WLHdeliLnPIZQSX91Bx5QvGYEXuk=;
        b=VmoWc+N2GQDgxfp0oJCexrfw8b+UK/V8xnyRbWSQV/kiXUM2lMatH6ePFg7tnnXJ5h
         pgpX6H2mEmUO1AypCuhrwkCWZ2HiH8lI+KHrayVFVnExm6xnyGNynKfSXgYtceIioMBa
         L/r/MSD4RhVaMK+8394DylqEcjkCBRkPooJh8rNEMjKiTSffp5uWkwx5zaAEDEZbVCKP
         ZRumQSM2c21K4aCzkHrndTQLg0hlZgBh0KL3PMHw1+bW6TkEYegh3HX0RLEFqeCmBh3q
         U2yH9FQ4jYQkTCXGNIDdRzkFmexsh/edILAn5FFRA4dHLeGCZD88dgcBcyTa2+/Yx5Gu
         IaoQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.139.136 with SMTP id qy8mr1539116lbb.38.1424299026701;
 Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:37:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.43.9 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:37:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMA5aFaNB0HEjxO763KR2Fy8fN815MPkifmca6dvUBDy2uFkKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nGjdguX=4Nt0H=kYnwg8rZ1BkWf8duGZfzheOXXV61pqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMA5aFaNB0HEjxO763KR2Fy8fN815MPkifmca6dvUBDy2uFkKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:37:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nF++VijuSVG1zA73u=es-t34LA_+sjy4VUAoFvLKU2J0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Albert Casademont Filella <albertcasademont@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC-Discuss] Scalar Type Declarations v0.5
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

Albert,

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Albert Casademont Filella
<albertcasademont@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Anthony!
>
> Thanks for bringing this up again. I am asking you the same I asked Andrea 2
> weeks ago on Twitter: make it a triple option vote please. She didn't want
> to do it, hope you do! This way you eliminate the neverending discussion
> about weak vs strict, let the votes decide and see who really prefers weak
> type hinting only and who prefers the stricter way, both camps will have an
> option to vote.
>
> So I propose 3 voting options: Yes (strict), Yes (weak), No. The Yes votes
> combined need 2/3 of the votes. Then a simple majority of 50%+1 between the
> different Yes votes is needed.

Thanks for the feedback. I have added it to the discussion points:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/scalar_type_hints_v5#this_proposal_should_have_multiple_vote_options

The text:

This is not a two-part proposal. The proposal is of a unified system
that was designed to work together. As such, neither part (weak-only
or strict-only) is designed to stand on its own without the other
part.

Therefore, it only makes sense to vote on this proposal as a whole.
Therefore, the voting options this RFC will present will be: Yes and
No.


Thanks,

Anthony