Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84856
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.53 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <85d81405ee1791efadea83cf734ebce3@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>
	<CAEZPtU7Yv4T2YJYm9B3jyoro+28opg1XtcrZAT9+ZTmVFkq4Cg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMc0WS5+AwBuyqE4BobM_MaR97gWPQQm+Ot2k1Jja+69JBTBHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<85d81405ee1791efadea83cf734ebce3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 13:48:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nF81EPPEwcomFsiwr_8KQOnWdwJ5E8_aCoJqUzF5pNAdw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Stelian Mocanita <stelianm@php.net>, PHP internals <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: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

Zeev,

>> Zeev, allow me to understand how this goes. Bob's discussions on the RFC
>> started 2 days ago. Based on the current rules, the RFC can only go to
>> vote
>> after 2 weeks. That means in 12 days starting now.
>>
>> So we are either violating the RFC rules by pushing the vote tomorrow or
>> we're delaying PHP7 for another 2 weeks maybe yet another TH RFC passes?
>
> Bob's RFC is effectively Andrea's v0.1 RFC which was discussed in detail =
and
> introduced well over two weeks ago.
> I hope we're not going to go into more and more extremes of playing a law
> firm and not an OS project.

We have minimum discussion periods for a reason. To allow people the
time to review proposals as much as to discuss them.

On the surface, yes, this looks like Andrea's 0.1 RFC. However, after
looking at it, it's definitely different. There's a very significant
behavior difference between the two:

Andrea's RFC had the following wording:

> The only exception to this is the handling of NULL: in order to be consis=
tent with our existing type hints for classes, callables and arrays, NULL i=
s not accepted by default, unless the parameter is explicitly given a defau=
lt value of NULL. This would work well with the draft Declaring Nullable Ty=
pes RFC.

This proposal has a different behavior here. It explicitly allows
nulls for types:

function foo(int $abc) { var_dump($abc); }

Unlike my proposal and any of Andrea's, calling foo(null) will be
int(0) instead of an error.

This is an important distinction as it basically undermines any
attempt at a nullable RFC, since it makes primitives implicitly
nullable.

So it's not effectively the original proposal. It does differ in a
very significant detail. This is why we have mandatory discussion
periods. Not for "playing law firm" but for being fair to each other.

Anthony.