Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83749
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.213.175 as permitted sender)
References: <CAEPJdunUN-=CwmQ4boLJ_OjNPrNna9iVLbAzPgOtcRKRjAt8jg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMA5aFYEj_5n1xxrvce1DxVVU4HJkwxQLNygbPQxhOxJJ1g+fg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPwsocGYX2HrJv-x0DOLKseEOTsTXrEh_-4EAKHFWf7P60ukHg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPwsocGYX2HrJv-x0DOLKseEOTsTXrEh_-4EAKHFWf7P60ukHg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQGxmiF7Z22ffY8v2XWDZ84uTIvoQQKiqsfjApjlC7ydE2JPAA==
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:09:51 +0200
Message-ID: <0aa4f2f9eedf3c66af3463d42a9d4645@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leigh <leight@gmail.com>, 
	Albert Casademont Filella <albertcasademont@gmail.com>
Cc: Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] The Game Theory of Scalar Type Hint Voting
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message----> From: Leigh [mailto:leight@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 2:56 PM
> To: Albert Casademont Filella
> Cc: Benjamin Eberlei; PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] The Game Theory of Scalar Type Hint Voting
>
> On 23 February 2015 at 21:15, Albert Casademont Filella
> <albertcasademont@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I like it! That's what I proposed to Anthony (and Andrea before)
> > before Zeev presented their alternative, to held a double vote on the
> > strict vs weak feature. It was not met with much enthusiasm, hope they
> > change their minds with your proposal!
>
> Except a dual vote is probably not going to work in favour of strict vs.
> weak.
>
> Why would anyone who wants purely strict vote for "Yes (strict)", when
> they
> know that "Yes (weak)" is going to have the majority. It boils down to
> voting
> Yes for something you don't want. I don't think it will convert votes at
> all.
> _If_ I wanted _strict only_ and I was presented with "Yes (strict)", "Yes
> (weak)", and "No" and could see the weak vote winning by a clear margin, I
> would vote No.

Leigh,

There isn't a weak-only proposal on the table.  There's the original one
(dual mode) and the coercive one.  Both have both strict and dynamic
elements in them.
I think that what Anthony proposed about a week or so ago, of having both
votes, and if both pass 2/3 - have another vote to choose between them
(where a simple majority wins) - makes the most sense in this uncharted
territory.
I think that opening the votes at the same time is probably a good idea.

Zeev