Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84955 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 11759 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2015 23:25:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Mar 2015 23:25:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; 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] ([217.147.176.214:47063] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 7E/77-06614-60516055 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 18:25:59 -0500 Received: (qmail 10576 invoked by uid 89); 15 Mar 2015 23:25:55 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 10570, pid: 10573, t: 0.0768s 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 23:25:55 -0000 Message-ID: <55061503.4040506@lsces.co.uk> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 23:25:55 +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] [RFC][Status] Scalar Type Declarations Voting Date Change From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 15/03/15 21:33, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > However, it has become exceedingly clear to me that this good faith > has not been reciprocated. The understanding that we had when both > proposals opened has now been violated. Rules have been broken and > politics are ensuing in an attempt to sabotage this proposal. Rather > than working together, "unofficial polls", backdoor politics and poor > behavior have created yet more toxicity. It is clear that while a majority of people may want type hinting in PHP7, just how to achieve that is NOT agreed. Even nudging THIS RFC just over the target vote still leaves many problems. Just how many people are voting for strict mode only? How many for ANY weak mode and how many would accept an alternative weak mode mechanism if strict mode was was a separate option which could be optionally added. Even claiming 'victory' would be a hollow win if what is included is simply ignored by 1/3rd of the users. You obviously desperately want strict mode, and I see no problem with that being an extension on top of a weak mode implementation, but is the bundled weak mode really what others want? Even Zeev want's type hinting just not in the way currently being proposed here, and perhaps a lot of the opposition is to that to the detriment of adding type hinting - if we have to have it. -- 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