Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84950 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 2664 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2015 22:57:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Mar 2015 22:57:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.214 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.147.176.214 mail4-2.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [217.147.176.214] ([217.147.176.214:59218] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C1/D5-06614-E3E06055 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 17:57:04 -0500 Received: (qmail 8318 invoked by uid 89); 15 Mar 2015 22:56:59 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 8312, pid: 8315, t: 0.0777s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52/d:10677 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.8?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@86.178.189.108) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 15 Mar 2015 22:56:59 -0000 Message-ID: <55060E3B.8010708@lsces.co.uk> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 22:56:59 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Basic STH - status & unofficial poll From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 15/03/15 21:32, Stelian Mocanita wrote: > I voted no just because at this point no matter which way STH goes, it > will end bad so I would rather not have it until people reconcile on > something that works for all parties. There does seem to be a general assumption that a 2/3rds majority actually want type hinting in PHP7? There has been no real vote on that? YES those of us who don't find that this will add anything useful to an existing stable code base can ignore them and simply not add any to our own code, but the key libraries are going to 'modernise' and add them so we have to live with all of the consequences. Adding a switch for 'strict' on top of that process just makes managing use of libraries even more complex going forward. I know where I am going moving forward and for the foreseeable future any library updates that result in it failing to work with PHP5.4 will be sidelined and only security updates allowed. There ARE a number of urgently needed tidy ups being included already in the current codebase making an upgrade important, but a number of other things being added fall in the camp of 'personal use' as has happen over a number of additions in the PHP5 development. Type hinting may be a popular improvement, but as has been demonstrated it's not coming up with a single most popular implementation? Even this unofficial poll is not asking the basic question? If I was looking at it in isolation I would say the result is strongly against type hinting ... but that is NOT what is being asked? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk