Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83392 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 25015 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2015 15:17:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Feb 2015 15:17:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:10412] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id EC/57-08895-E61A8E45 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 10:17:04 -0500 Received: from moorea (unknown [82.240.16.115]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3784B029E; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 16:16:51 +0100 (CET) Reply-To: To: "'Anthony Ferrara'" Cc: "Sara Golemon" , "'Lester Caine'" , , "Zeev Suraski" , "Arvids Godjuks" , "Robert Stoll" , "Rasmus Lerdorf" , , "Andrey Andreev" , "Andi Gutmans" , "Pierre Joye" References: In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 16:16:52 +0100 Message-ID: <05d001d04de9$6d24a060$476de120$@php.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_05D1_01D04DF1.CEE9CBB0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHZm35ye3NFGwIiX+/cnKgzWZqQypzohH0A Content-Language: fr X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150221-0, 21/02/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: RE: Using Other Channels (was Scalar Type Declarations v0.5) From: francois@php.net (=?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=) ------=_NextPart_000_05D1_01D04DF1.CEE9CBB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Anthony, I sent you a copy of the messages I sent to Sara, asking for more = details about what you consider as 'deplorable' in them. I also sent = another message to get your opinion about the new ruleset I could = propose. It seems you didn't have time to reply. Just hope you don't = refuse communication. If this was the case, go on with vote now, no need = to make it look like you're waiting for me if, behind the scene, you're = not ready to communicate. As I didn't get the explanation I was looking for from you, I'll now ask = everyone interested to give an opinion. That's why I attached both = messages. If anyone understands the reaction it generated, please tell = me, it will help me not do the mistake again. As I told you, the only = thing I see as potentially offensive is 'you probably don't care'. I = don't know how it is in English but, in French, it is not considered as = very offensive. I would have preferred avoiding to disturb everyone with the subject = again and I took time to think about it but, while I may have been = impolite in private, you made it public and your message even contains = terms that I consider as public insults against me, my work, and my = relationship with the community. So, while you 'can't stress how = deplorable my acts were', I won't qualify yours, especially since it = seems you wrote this without having read the messages in question. To be clear, Sara's reporting I did 'not-so-politely' ask her to stop = work, is technically wrong but the tone is correct. It just saddens me = because I have the biggest respect for her work, but I can live with it. = You amplified it to 'sandbagged, sabotage, strong-armed' which is still = more wrong, but also insulting. So, if anyone sees something incorrect in the attached messages, I'll = apologize again because it was not intended, and I do it in advance to = Sara. But I am not sure who should apologize most. Now, unless someone = wants it to go on, I'm afraid I won't have time for this anymore. Regards Fran=C3=A7ois > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmaxell@gmail.com] > Envoy=C3=A9 : jeudi 19 f=C3=A9vrier 2015 14:24 > =C3=80 : francois@php.net > Cc : Lester Caine; internals@lists.php.net > Objet : Using Other Channels (was Scalar Type Declarations v0.5) >=20 > Francois >=20 > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Fran=C3=A7ois Laupretre = > wrote: > >> De : Lester Caine [mailto:lester@lsces.co.uk] > >> > >> On 19/02/15 04:44, Dennis Birkholz wrote: > >> > I just saw the reddit where you mention that v0.4 is practically > >> > abandoned now, so I will just renounce my previous mail! > >> > >> DO NOT USE OTHER CHANNELS! > > > > Agreed. >=20 > You mean like contacting another contributor in private asking them to > not make a proposal and to stop work on it? >=20 > > And the RFC was not abandoned at all. I and others have been working > almost continuously on a 'compromise' single-mode approach during the = last > 3 days (and nights), as activity on the list shows with no doubt. So, > pretending the RFC to be 'abandoned' is just a way to discard a = disagreed > work. >=20 > Let me quote something that was said: >=20 > "Ze'ev and Fran=C3=A7ois have not-so-politely asked [Sara] to not put = 0.4 > forward since they have something they believe they have consensus > on." >=20 > So while it may not have been "abandoned", it was sandbagged > (sabotaged, strong-armed, etc). I used abandoned as a light term to > not point out to list what strong-arming happened behind the scenes. > But since you apparently don't want "other channels used"... >=20 > I can't stress how deplorable that act is. How harmful to the > community it is to ask in private for a contributor to stop what they > are doing because someone else "has a better idea". We had a proposal > that *had* consensus (66%). It was withdrawn. With some minor changes, > at least 25% of no-voters would have changed their mind (based on > conversations around why the voted no). >=20 > So rather than go for the 70-75% consensus that we **know** we have, > we should drop all work for a magic vaporware proposal. Contributors > should stand down and not contribute because "you know better". >=20 > I'm sorry, I favor the proposal that's in writing and implemented > rather than one that's yet to be seen. If yours does indeed prove to > be as good as possible, then the votes will decide. Or if it convinces > me early enough, I'll withdraw the current proposal. But based on > everything I've seen in the discussion threads, I can't possibly see > how that will happen. I hope you surprise me, but in case that you > don't, I'm moving forward with the existing implementation that we > know has support. >=20 > > As long as she does not officially gives up (posting to the list), = I'll keep > considering Sara still has the lead on scalar type hinting. If she = officially gives > up, I'll immediately propose to take it over and, if we are several to = want it, > we'll discuss. >=20 > I created a forked RFC. You can keep her as lead all you want, that > doesn't mean I can't move forward with my RFC. >=20 > > That's the rule and I encourage list members to explicitly show = their > support to the formal process we all agreed upon. >=20 > What rule is that? Can you point me to anywhere in the Voting RFC that > says that? https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting >=20 > It doesn't. >=20 > That's fine. Let's let the votes decide rather than relying on = strongarming. >=20 > > For the rest, Lester summarized quite well my view about designing = PHP > for static analysis, instead of static analysis for PHP ;) >=20 > Saying a problem doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. >=20 > Anthony ------=_NextPart_000_05D1_01D04DF1.CEE9CBB0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment From: =?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?= To: "'Sara Golemon'" References: <54E3E27B.2010903@lerdorf.com> <02c501d04b26$fd278350$f77689f0$@php.net> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Scalar Type Hints v0.4 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:05:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKz6wpj8b81mnwJq1LfxWbU4ZJyQgGjcksIAbrU1N8Bn0wufQCkN8nOAqS8W8cB9BK8WZrdJQYQ Content-Language: fr Hi Sara, OK. I won't say you don't care. To explain, while it's not a reason, I read this at 2 AM after having = spent almost 24 hours working on this... I am happy to see I was wrong = and apologize if I have been unfair (I love 'bring it down a notch', I = didn't know the expression but I'll reuse it :). The good thing is that = it made me go to bed, when I would probably have spent the night again. If you read 'Reviving scalar type hints' posts again, especially mine's = and Zeev's, between us and to other members, they will show you what we = were aiming to, but Zeev's summary is fine too (while 'details' are = always important). I am currently writing the changes I would do to the ZPP layers and = zend_parse_parameters(). Unfortunately, I don't consider arg_info = because, IMO, using zpp is much more powerful and consistent, in the = case of a single-mode approach. I agree that, in a dual-mode approach, = it can be better to start with untyped internal functions and set type = hinting out of zpp but, in the single mode case, keeping userland and = internal available features in sync is an essential benefit, IMO again. The point of proposing to implement it via arg_info makes me afraid = because there was consensus here and, if people start arguing about zpp, = zend_parse_parameters(), or arg_info, as most don't understand the = implications very well, it can quickly go nowhere, and I understand = that's not a good argument, but we don't have much time. If it is = accepted to postpone feature freeze by one or two months, why not, but, = by now, it is March 15, very soon. Regards Fran=C3=A7ois > -----Message d'origine----- > De : php@golemon.com [mailto:php@golemon.com] De la part de Sara > Golemon > Envoy=C3=A9 : mercredi 18 f=C3=A9vrier 2015 05:26 > =C3=80 : francois@php.net > Objet : Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar Type Hints v0.4 >=20 > Woah there, buddy. Bring it down a notch. >=20 > If you want to put forward a modified 0.1, go for it. I was stepping > forward into what I saw as a vacuum, because I don't see this > consensus you speak of. >=20 > If you feel like I'm stepping on your toes, then I'll back off, but > you don't need to accuse me of not caring. That's uncalled for. >=20 >=20 > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Fran=C3=A7ois Laupretre = > wrote: > > Hi Sara, > > > > I don't know if you read the posts I exchanged with others on the = list about > scalar type hinting, but we worked hard to build a consensus on a = single > mode approach that would satisfy, say, 90% of us. And I think we got = it, step > by step, both camps moving to a common position. To summarize, it was > roughly based on 0.1, with zpp restrictions and a lot of important = 'details', like > support for additional strict-only types. Both camps seemed to agree. = I had > spent two days and two nights on it but, two hours ago, I was pretty = sure of > what I would put in the RFC, and I knew it had good chances if a FUD > campaign didn't shoot it down. > > > > Unfortunately, what I read in your message is almost exactly the = opposite > of what we had in mind. I won't take it point by point because I'm a = little > bitter tonight. Maybe tomorrow. > > > > The only positive point is that it proposes other subjects than = declare() > endless bikesheding. > > > > The negative point is that it breaks everything and puts it on the = table > again. Even what everyone agreed, like alignment on ZPP will have to = be > endlessly discussed again. And, as most don't understand the = difference and > implications of using arg_info or ZPP, it will be toxic kindergarten = again. > > > > With the 7.0 feature freeze approaching, I really don't understand = why you > did that. > > > > Anyway, you probably won't care but I find it a little unfair. I was = the first > one to propose reviving scalar type hints (hence the thread subject). = I didn't > take over Andrea's RFC because I wanted to build something different = and I > naively considered that taking over would restrict me to cosmetic = changes > before running a new vote, as it remains Andrea's RFC, not mine. I = realize I > was na=C3=AFve and too honest because you took it over formally and, = now, you > propose something really different. Now, as you know we won't probably > propose two competing RFCs, given the last flame war, you're free to > propose it the way you want. I will be less na=C3=AFve next time. > > > > Fran=C3=A7ois > > > >> -----Message d'origine----- > >> De : php@golemon.com [mailto:php@golemon.com] De la part de Sara > >> Golemon > >> Envoy=C3=A9 : mercredi 18 f=C3=A9vrier 2015 02:56 > >> =C3=80 : Nikita Popov > >> Cc : Rasmus Lerdorf; PHP internals > >> Objet : Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar Type Hints v0.4 > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Nikita Popov = > >> wrote: > >> > This is exactly what I fear will happen with an arginfo based = approach. If > >> > even fundamental aspects like the "123" vs 123 (or true vs 1) = distinction > >> > are suppressed for internal functions, this isn't a strict typing = mode, it's > >> > just a weak typing mode with slightly different rules. > >> > > >> By the way, I realize I wasn't clear in my previous reply to you. = I > >> don't mean to dismiss your position and the proposal I put forth = was > >> just to get a feel for people's gut reactions to it. Your gut > >> reaction is clearly negative and that will be taken into account = when > >> I put up 0.4 of the RFC which may or may not look like this = proposal, > >> depending on what others have to say about it. > >> > >> -Sara > >> > >> -- > >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php ------=_NextPart_000_05D1_01D04DF1.CEE9CBB0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment From: =?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?= To: "'Sara Golemon'" References: <54E3E27B.2010903@lerdorf.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Scalar Type Hints v0.4 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 04:00:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKz6wpj8b81mnwJq1LfxWbU4ZJyQgGjcksIAbrU1N8Bn0wufQCkN8nOmwFe/FA= Content-Language: fr Hi Sara, I don't know if you read the posts I exchanged with others on the list = about scalar type hinting, but we worked hard to build a consensus on a = single mode approach that would satisfy, say, 90% of us. And I think we = got it, step by step, both camps moving to a common position. To = summarize, it was roughly based on 0.1, with zpp restrictions and a lot = of important 'details', like support for additional strict-only types. = Both camps seemed to agree. I had spent two days and two nights on it = but, two hours ago, I was pretty sure of what I would put in the RFC, = and I knew it had good chances if a FUD campaign didn't shoot it down. Unfortunately, what I read in your message is almost exactly the = opposite of what we had in mind. I won't take it point by point because = I'm a little bitter tonight. Maybe tomorrow. The only positive point is that it proposes other subjects than = declare() endless bikesheding. The negative point is that it breaks everything and puts it on the table = again. Even what everyone agreed, like alignment on ZPP will have to be = endlessly discussed again. And, as most don't understand the difference = and implications of using arg_info or ZPP, it will be toxic kindergarten = again. With the 7.0 feature freeze approaching, I really don't understand why = you did that. Anyway, you probably won't care but I find it a little unfair. I was the = first one to propose reviving scalar type hints (hence the thread = subject). I didn't take over Andrea's RFC because I wanted to build = something different and I naively considered that taking over would = restrict me to cosmetic changes before running a new vote, as it remains = Andrea's RFC, not mine. I realize I was na=C3=AFve and too honest = because you took it over formally and, now, you propose something really = different. Now, as you know we won't probably propose two competing = RFCs, given the last flame war, you're free to propose it the way you = want. I will be less na=C3=AFve next time. Fran=C3=A7ois > -----Message d'origine----- > De : php@golemon.com [mailto:php@golemon.com] De la part de Sara > Golemon > Envoy=C3=A9 : mercredi 18 f=C3=A9vrier 2015 02:56 > =C3=80 : Nikita Popov > Cc : Rasmus Lerdorf; PHP internals > Objet : Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar Type Hints v0.4 >=20 > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Nikita Popov > wrote: > > This is exactly what I fear will happen with an arginfo based = approach. If > > even fundamental aspects like the "123" vs 123 (or true vs 1) = distinction > > are suppressed for internal functions, this isn't a strict typing = mode, it's > > just a weak typing mode with slightly different rules. > > > By the way, I realize I wasn't clear in my previous reply to you. I > don't mean to dismiss your position and the proposal I put forth was > just to get a feel for people's gut reactions to it. Your gut > reaction is clearly negative and that will be taken into account when > I put up 0.4 of the RFC which may or may not look like this proposal, > depending on what others have to say about it. >=20 > -Sara >=20 > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php ------=_NextPart_000_05D1_01D04DF1.CEE9CBB0--