Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84725
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender)
References: <BLU436-SMTP234CAFED9639237DE430B18E2190@phx.gbl>
	<325E0097-FD7E-4997-A95D-20C62368E162@zend.com>	<55031C54.6060802@eliw.com>
	<CAMc0WS5MJ_RAtNO47R4wQjy8_YSDzzZeGECLUnzSVOAmB2JyPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFp73Xtk4-o=DjipY4niopmgg+JC+Yyju_oxUWKWEHqMgQoiOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7CE491F0-C243-4788-ADA2-5DA9DF1D1168@php.net>	<d40df0c5636fccd2dd672ad1a4b72ced@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEPJdukMnxn+Rjxy7tN0oSfoD_ryNwKDRLjJF6AAwGoWGH8WQA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJdukMnxn+Rjxy7tN0oSfoD_ryNwKDRLjJF6AAwGoWGH8WQA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQLg0UZIsq+15w5AwD0SDZXLD3VPogLMHcQTAaGt238CcCYc0AGWzLp/ApGYoQUDQRlseQIrE/I/mnZ6G/A=
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 00:03:00 +0200
Message-ID: <332304ae552bfc635f999a8d73b505f0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de>
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Eberlei [mailto:kontakt@beberlei.de]
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:50 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Derick Rethans; Eli; Guilherme Blanco; Stelian Mocanita; PHP Internal=
s
> List
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>
>
> 	> -----Original Message-----
> 	> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:derick@php.net]
> 	> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:34 PM
> 	> To: guilhermeblanco@gmail.com; Stelian Mocanita
> 	> Cc: Eli; PHP Internals List
> 	> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
> 	>
> 	>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.
>
> 	You may very well be right, but the only way of truly knowing would
> be
> 	putting it up for a vote.  I'd feel a lot more comfortable if this was
> also
> 	available for a vote before moving my nay to yay on the Dual Mode
> RFC.
>
>
>
> I don't get it.
>
> you called Andrea out for not putting up v1 of her RFC for vote because i=
t
> had so much momentum behind it.
> Instead of just doing what bwoebi did you put up another RFC that got
> *much more* negative tone from the beginning.
> We agree on having a vote on two RFCs, coercive and v5.
> Now that coercive is the clear loser suddenly v1 must be up for vote as
> well?
>
> You had the chance to do just this.

Benjamin,

Maybe I was na=C3=AFve, but I thought I had a better way to make both weak =
&
strict camps happy, instead of just ignoring the strict camp altogether.
While there was some opposition to it - it mostly came from the main
proponents of the Strict camp, and, well, you :)  Clearly right now it seem=
s
that not a lot of people bought into the coercive approach, and while I hop=
e
it can be turned around - I realize the chances for that happening aren't
stellar.  Given we can go to a vote on Bob's RFC tomorrow without having to
delay the PHP 7 timeline, I don't see strong reasons not to do it, and put
to rest any theories about what might have happened if v0.1 ever went for a
vote.

Zeev