Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83415
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU5XvxyxtMPaoSu9jUvrock_sF0O5N30-SSGcAbUn=Dxtw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7ef509ef10bb345c792f9d259c7a3fbb@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU5XvxyxtMPaoSu9jUvrock_sF0O5N30-SSGcAbUn=Dxtw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 13:28:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nFOCbrTOp5++5NV50rYwKvVw6v6F7EJq906SafDzAcawQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Coercive Scalar Type Hints RFC
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

Pierre,

> And finally, this RFC only proposes one solution, so competitive RFCs
> are still required to actually represent alternatives.

That is a good thing. it should only propose one solution. Making a
single RFC proposing two solutions would be a MASSIVE mistake IMHO as
these proposals are complex and charged enough without trying to make
a voter read a single piece of text that goes back and forth between
two options.

We need to be simplifying, not making more difficult. Only about 25%
of my RFC is dedicated to the proposal. The other ~75% is dedicated to
summarizing the conversation and acting as a FAQ. That could well live
off-RFC if we used discussion pages or something of the like (which we
likely should).

Anthony