Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85032
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1503161120100.4205@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
References: <CABBJUpfiy1BpdyZ5MJmQb3vQz9U8TkSECHCRctupV+BUG1H=fw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55066F07.80308@birkholz.biz>
	<CABBJUpd+yd_7g8VkU0SHRMt0a35idyyLS_7m6=-cGgBB1RzkQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN=kQJe6civW3x=uT2wMB7Mb-33LvkSyHfU=FfB8cfbWsVE+_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXaMPs2WNOvJzJz6S3Qm1z28H=msi8SdVsmPYJGz-kM8hQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5506794B.8090008@birkholz.biz>
	<CAGa2bXbGxr4E8hi1_faNWOWSeLi6kn5kQJknCaZ4vUTNxHR+tg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU68oFYN5YoQk7+kJPDancrfj9eEbau9BCB6OgkQEV7p8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXYU4LVDdVdCjRUbqvFbkBzy_U3O21Hu7uarZBK_F=ir8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.11.1503161120100.4205@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:49:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CAB6YZuxhAGsRrOKTSNF5nt4bwxHSx9B-NakDk9hzPTu0HWTOFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
Cc: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Dennis Birkholz <dennis@birkholz.biz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] About declare(strict_types = 1)
From: pajousek@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Pavel_Kou=C5=99il?=)

>>
>> This RFC will have serious consequence. We made mistake with
>> "safe_mode". The main reason it failed is "it did not force caller to
>> have responsibility to make it work as it should". This RFC does the
>> same for how declare(strict_types=3D1) works.
>>
>> Aren't we learned from "safe_mode" lessons?
>
> I am not sure why you mention "safe_mode" as this has absolutely nothing
> to do with scalar type hints. Not feature wise, not implementation wise.
>
> safe_mode, first of all, was a global INI setting. The developer
> couldn't turn it off easily. That was probably at least 80% of the pain.
> The second part was the name, as it indicated that it made your scripts
> safe: It didn't.
>
> STHv5 does not suffer from either issue =E2=80=94 developers can pick and=
 choose
> the best solution for *them* (give them some credit, most developers are
> actually smart!). Library authors always get the right type if they type
> hint, which is *their* main pain point. And the type names have always
> already been used for casts anyway, and don't include "safe" in their
> name.
>
> cheers,

Hello,

it's similiar to the safe_mode though. Sure, it's not as bad as INI
setting, but the "intent" is the same - a switch changing how code
behaves.

When I talked about the Dual Mode with some friends who are userland
PHP devs (either current or former, because they switched to other
stuff), none of them called the Dual Mode a great idea. The responses
I got were mostly along the lines of "wow, this seems really weird" to
"WTF are those developers smoking". Everyone of them (sure, ~10 people
isn't really representative number) said that they think PHP needs
STH, but not this Dual Mode stuff.

Seriously, think about it for a while - when some setting that changes
how code behaves was a good idea?

(IMHO never.)

Regards
Pavel Kouril