Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84704
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOsHV+s5MG1387=HKh5yGvm1RaWWgjXGtOZrQyr6Q-_9o5__WQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nHMAAMEtK9B7MxvNc8w2SVr+7GPH9RH989Z5gMYW1TWHg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOsHV+s5MG1387=HKh5yGvm1RaWWgjXGtOZrQyr6Q-_9o5__WQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:21:31 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPwsocFsrrX3V3YxsAjGfnqTUVqimwZjyqRVQ6g6rT5SBG8__A@mail.gmail.com>
To: marcio3w@gmail.com
Cc: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] A plea for unity on scalar types
From: leight@gmail.com (Leigh)

On 13 March 2015 at 17:24, Marcio Almada <marcio.web2@gmail.com> wrote:
> At the time I'm witting this, the "Coercive Scalar Types" RFC needs 52
> "yes" votes to reach minimum ratio. This RFC was well discussed and peopl=
e
> justified their "no" votes quite verbosely on the respective thread. Bein=
g
> practical, we all know it has no chances to pass.
>
> By keeping this vote running we put in risk all the advancements that are
> already so close to be consolidated. Loosing this opportunity would be
> damaging for both the major part of the community and the RFC process
> itself, IMMO, specially because the dual mode RFC already reached super
> majority and the voting would be closed today.
>
> The concurrent RFC, that is now clearly rejected, had its chance and
> failed. I agree that dropping the vote for "Coercive Scalar Typehints" is
> the logical (even noble) attitude in such context. Please let's not drag
> this situation for more two weeks for nothing.

Indeed, at this point in time the Coercive RFC is considered harmful,
a lot of damage has already been done, but we can at least try and
mitigate further damage.

Many people who have been coerced (see what I did there?) into voting
for the coercive RFC have voted against the dual-mode RFC out of
principal. Yes for one is No for another, makes sense. How many do you
think will revisit their vote if one RFC is retracted?

So I also urge people to consider this. Do you want scalar type hints
in the language? If there was only the dual-mode RFC, would you vote
for it? If the answer to both of those is Yes, then you should
consider supporting the option that actually stands a chance of
passing.

If you're in the strict camp, and you're voting against because you
don't want to declare strict in every file, there are ways around
this. Don't oppose the RFC simply on this issue alone.

Cheers,

Leigh.


On 13 March 2015 at 17:24, Marcio Almada <marcio.web2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2015-03-13 12:45 GMT-03:00 Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>:
>
>> All,
>> [...]
>> I respectfully ask Zeev to retract his current proposal as it's
>> currently failing with 68% of voters voting against it (currently
>> 16:34). Without extending the timeline for 7, there's very little
>> chance of it passing. So rather than dragging out the entire process
>> needlessly for 2 more weeks, can we just finally be done with it?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Anthony
>>
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
>>
> At the time I'm witting this, the "Coercive Scalar Types" RFC needs 52
> "yes" votes to reach minimum ratio. This RFC was well discussed and peopl=
e
> justified their "no" votes quite verbosely on the respective thread. Bein=
g
> practical, we all know it has no chances to pass.
>
> By keeping this vote running we put in risk all the advancements that are
> already so close to be consolidated. Loosing this opportunity would be
> damaging for both the major part of the community and the RFC process
> itself, IMMO, specially because the dual mode RFC already reached super
> majority and the voting would be closed today.
>
> The concurrent RFC, that is now clearly rejected, had its chance and
> failed. I agree that dropping the vote for "Coercive Scalar Typehints" is
> the logical (even noble) attitude in such context. Please let's not drag
> this situation for more two weeks for nothing.
>
> Regards,
> M=C3=A1rcio