Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84161
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 74.125.82.50 as permitted sender)
References: <d238d736f8fcde9e649cb38c9b05fcc1@mail.gmail.com>
 <DUB113-W139512BB87516EAD168575DF9130@phx.gbl> <ed4e3cf6c363aa74cdd44c7d908f5d3a@mail.gmail.com>
 <54F42DDF.2070505@lsces.co.uk> <bce398d196ee18f1b8c33870a1a84e68@mail.gmail.com>
 <54F436E7.3060607@lsces.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <54F436E7.3060607@lsces.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQHbEgvqZ08kgCvmYfG4mXODzCFejgD7DxroAZSg+X8CNOWwVQKzrIxQAbUm+uycqhRn0A==
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:18:01 +0200
Message-ID: <12b0175e25aa56d00717e8553e7ce368@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Coercive STH - some real world tests and updated RFC
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lester Caine [mailto:lester@lsces.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 12:10 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Coercive STH - some real world tests and updated
> RFC
>
> On 02/03/15 09:47, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > I'm obviously biased but I believe that the coercive rules actually
> > cover a lot more ground than the weak+strict sets.  In other words,
> > with
> > weak+strict, overall, you're going to have to add custom code in a lot
> > weak+more
> > cases than with the coercive rule set (either because weak is too weak
> > and strict will very frequently be too strict, while coercive provides
> > a rule-set that accepts sensible values and reject non-sensible ones,
> > making it work out of the box in most cases).  But even with coercive,
> > it's definitely not a one size fits all solution, and it's not
> > supposed to be either.  You still have custom code available to you.
>
> But since the horse is now out of the stable, we have to live with strict
> anyway, so where will coercive rules fit in if they get accepted as well?
> All of
> this is just creating different rules for sub-sets of users :(

As Anthony proposed if both pass, we're going to have a vote to decide
between them, as they do contradict each other.  Note that we're not going
to know the status of either vote with certainty until March 13th.

Zeev