Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84743
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7de9d64ab85cad86836b43c8acbed439@mail.gmail.com>
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>
	<7de9d64ab85cad86836b43c8acbed439@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 10:15:48 +1100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU6zttCy3PWy-YzfNK2sQ89dMGvX216OBTcKS2M1zsCjnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>, Guilherme Blanco <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c16dfc61b30b051133ae7e
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--001a11c16dfc61b30b051133ae7e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mar 14, 2015 10:14 AM, "Zeev Suraski" <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>
> > -----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 happenin=
g
> > 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
days
> > 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 ge=
t
> 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.

Then do it. And let move forward. :-)
This topic is killing us.

> Zeev
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>

--001a11c16dfc61b30b051133ae7e--