Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84742
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 74.125.82.172 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>
 <332304ae552bfc635f999a8d73b505f0@mail.gmail.com> <BLU436-SMTP2006B651941E5F110906973E2070@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU436-SMTP2006B651941E5F110906973E2070@phx.gbl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQLg0UZIsq+15w5AwD0SDZXLD3VPogLMHcQTAaGt238CcCYc0AGWzLp/ApGYoQUDQRlseQIrE/I/AkSeeDQDMwLjeppK0ouw
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 01:14:27 +0200
Message-ID: <7de9d64ab85cad86836b43c8acbed439@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>, PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Cc: guilhermeblanco@gmail.com
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: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobwei9@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:07 AM
> To: PHP Internals List
> Cc: Zeev Suraski; guilhermeblanco@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
>
> 	Am 13.03.2015 um 23:03 schrieb Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>:
>
> 	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
> seems
> 	that not a lot of people bought into the coercive approach, and while
> I hope
> 	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
>
>
> I won't go into vote tomorrow.
>
> Given that we already discussed that proposal a lot a few months ago
> (Andreas v1), we can go for a discussion phase a bit shorter (like 10 day=
s
> total), but I won't put a new RFC into vote tomorrow. Especially as it's
> still
> being heavily discussed.
>
> Also, this vote is just valid in case where other votes fail - so we
> actually
> don't *compete* with Anthonys RFC. It doesn't affect the voting period of
> Anthonys RFC. We can have the vote still going on a few days after both
> RFCs failed.
> This RFC is only about the common part of both RFCs.

Bob,

If you don't put it into a vote by Sunday, then by definition it can't get
into v7.0 - unless we either have another vote to delay the timeline (big
hassle).  Plus, as you can see, there are people (heck, even me) that would
vote in favor of the Dual Mode RFC just because there's no alternative.

Zeev