Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84715 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 3883 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2015 20:34:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Mar 2015 20:34:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:38912] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F0/60-34457-CB943055 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:34:06 -0500 Received: from [10.235.149.139] (unknown [85.255.235.186]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D502E202F; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:34:01 +0000 (GMT) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <325E0097-FD7E-4997-A95D-20C62368E162@zend.com> <55031C54.6060802@eliw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:33:56 +0000 To: "guilhermeblanco@gmail.com" ,Stelian Mocanita CC: Eli ,PHP Internals List Message-ID: <7CE491F0-C243-4788-ADA2-5DA9DF1D1168@php.net> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) "guilhermeblanco@gmail.com" schreef op 13 maart 2015 18:57:35 GMT+00:00: >+1 on this, as this is more inline with how ZPP currently works, >creating >less headaches to end users. > >On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Stelian Mocanita >wrote: > >> So to get it clear for everyone: the right way is for internals to >ignore >> community as a >> whole, stick to their own views and implement something nobody >actually >> wants - just >> because there is no time - on the idea that "something is better >than >> nothing"? >> >> Without pointing any fingers it sure looks like a stalling tactic >where >> someone >> eventually gets what they want. >> >> Highly disappointed on this outcome. >> >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Eli wrote: >> >> > Not that another +1 is needed, but I'm with Andi here. I do >personally >> > like this 3rd proposal as an option, if nothing else because it >> > implements the 'simpler base' at the moment, and allows us, once >people >> > are used to this being part of the language, to continue to evolve >> > later. And that evolution can be based upon our real world >experience >> > of using this 'base level' of typehinting for a while. >> > >> > Versus the more complicated versions, of which both Zeev's and >Anthony's >> > are. In each their own way. >> > >> > Eli >> > >> > On 3/13/15 1:17 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote: >> > > Agree and I would vote +1 on this even if I'd prefer coercive. It >is a >> > > very valid option for a 7.0 and it is future proof. >> > >> > -- >> > | Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: EliW | >> > >> > >> > >> Chance of this RFC passing is going to be slim, as it only caters for one of the three groups that Antony described... I certainly will vote against it.