Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83385 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 1936 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2015 09:57:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Feb 2015 09:57:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=zeev@zend.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=zeev@zend.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.223.182 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: zeev@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.223.182 mail-ie0-f182.google.com Received: from [209.85.223.182] ([209.85.223.182:43614] helo=mail-ie0-f182.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 94/04-08895-17658E45 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 04:57:06 -0500 Received: by iebtr6 with SMTP id tr6so13326935ieb.10 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 01:57:02 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=2gWUX6Qx8Fi065tIzht9CV+dawiL3YaVFp9ISjJFL+c=; b=PcRNNorPJJHEkEOq5z2F6qcRZSSUDZQfpVhclMMZUT+VrFe1PdQrPIfL9BeTsqGHFz HotemaoVld7AtEjwtl/DaTONly/YGMZmZ2li8X16GNdYYfVCLX4SoE3wMUGl1VPlAYAe HFdPBRI7RPL8pohGBGUGy1BhXUnYB42DP6sKpIrDoaHeY5NBTByw22v5o8OL06SuWmSd Y4Il6TAc09cwIXwgRZlTvklVzLQWY1OQ+3CBzSl3Ivz5GXUgoo1vb/ZKv3mjvi45c0d9 LmmVkh7Wl2baOMYuPOi3RsJIkVhwIkrdCk+jxLjdkrFcDr/YJ4L42N0AgZpJXgxiIMED PCYA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlwyJArR963eJwqC8E8URlarKZ+y/3vaJvkOy5Hra6kXcDws3JLudkt2BtZEtD3O+q47+wFRbrWKUdSoloeb92I6bfZ4Lg1xOBTfHRCey5pFTgKXHFtnplwkrpFlXDo/dzw/k920TQXwAP2uHes5YOzCsK/jQ== X-Received: by 10.43.67.3 with SMTP id xs3mr2147751icb.39.1424512621781; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 01:57:01 -0800 (PST) References: <011801d04a07$83ab1c00$8b015400$@php.net> <7a5d96b34b98ec1f3ee17be7fa6a1e81@mail.gmail.com> <2CBDEB67-3DE3-437D-9AF3-0E6A92027244@zend.com> <4cc0c81c7199a452534bb8edcdb19914@mail.gmail.com> <54E589F6.9030002@garfieldtech.com> <54E66569.8000709@garfieldtech.com> <012001d04d46$271dac90$755905b0$@tutteli.ch> <54E7C3D7.5070409@garf ieldtech.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGD0sLDaA+/0NIeBlQhQC5OtPA/xwF/LMVUAKMdkVsCrbGuvgKewIvOAjZGY+oCdIzJ3QHfJ9zIAadxn2gCxVQ2xQHNUGiPAhrgFYQBxvwQIwJ0oF2BASMW5AECDyaOZgI/7LjXASqPGREBNhlSPJyA8OYw Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 11:57:00 +0200 Message-ID: To: Anthony Ferrara , Larry Garfield Cc: 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) > -----Original Message----- > From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmaxell@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 1:36 AM > To: Larry Garfield > Cc: internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Reviving scalar type hints > > Larry, > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Larry Garfield > wrote: > > On 02/20/2015 06:28 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > >> > >> Considering I'm not targetting 7 (I've updated the RFC to hint this), > >> we can choose what to do later depending on the exceptions result > >> (whether to bypass execution in strict mode only, or for all calls). > >> Thanks for the insight Anthony > > > > > > That makes me very sad, as whether the strict option is there or not > > I'd > > *really* love to see scalar hints in PHP 7 to complement return type > > hinting. > > Timing just won't work while being fair with alternative proposals. > I've said since I re-opened the proposal that I'm comfortable with it not > targeting 7.0... > > Unless we're willing to push feature freeze by 2-3 weeks for it, it just > doesn't > make sense to target 7 with people working on an alternate proposal (since > by definition they couldn't target 7). Anthony, Following Adam's analysis of the timeline, taking the more 'strict' (no pun intended!) interpretation of the timeline RFC, we still have until tomorrow to start the discussion and still target it for 7.0, no? Given the importance of this topic, I'd go for the more lax interpretation that allows for votes to begin by March 15, giving us all a bit more time to discuss. I don't think any of us, on any camp, wants to wait for 2016 for this. Thoughts? Zeev