Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93824
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.52 as permitted sender)
To: Rasmus Schultz <rasmus@mindplay.dk>
References: <d9847a18-49c0-d2d0-db4e-e0d6e6685ba0@fleshgrinder.com>
 <CAESVnVoSbkT=u+agkx9mn+aqsyGv9qOo27tdbkje4qpJ2S=gFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADqTB_jDbkmbYEoyX-SE69ZSUu1-3aWRrJ9pYdE4vGn9acmegg@mail.gmail.com>
 <94009625-535b-d937-21b6-b454f942a82d@gmail.com>
 <CADqTB_irWb2X53L3C1ppNhxUqXL4z2+sxq7bXuWTqkYNDGZYQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ebba3ca9-0190-9dbd-9820-9f749272900c@gmail.com>
 <CADqTB_jrz1HbDPVLMagHtapEKKduz-8FXpUhhHQ_r20V7_7XrA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <07d42252-ed02-d0ab-d0c7-b01b9132f9e3@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:52:18 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADqTB_jrz1HbDPVLMagHtapEKKduz-8FXpUhhHQ_r20V7_7XrA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC DISCUSSION] typeof
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> You can choose your point of view - I choose the point of view where we
> replace a broken function with a function that does what developers
> would actually *expect*.

It's not just a point of view. If it is implemented, it will have
consequences for millions of people using PHP. Adding them extra work
and having them to deal with all the consequences that follow from that
decision. With this ecosystem, each change has a cost. It's not just "I
think this way, it's my opinion". That is true for a personal project.
PHP is not a personal project, so proposing change to it is not a matter
of personal opinion - it is much broader. That is why I am and will
continue to argue against changes that have minimal benefit - like this
one - because they are not worth the cost of change imposed on the
ecosystem. There's no such thing as free change, so it should be worth it.

> You know what, all this rhetoric in favor of inconsistency, against a

It's not in favor of inconsistency. It is in favor of not creating a
mess of having two basic functions doing almost, but not quite the same.
The cost of having imperfect, but widely used function is much less than
the cost of switching to another function, learning to distinguish them
in the code, having transition period with two functions and then trying
to eliminate old function from all code that had absolutely no problem
with it. And the benefit is mostly vague "consistency". I mean,
consistency is important design consideration. But in no way "it makes
me sad to see people complain on Reddit about PHP being inconsistent"
is worth more than "people having to change tons of code everywhere to
accommodate change made so that people won't complain on Reddit".

> solution that has already been implemented?

That fact that is has been implemented does not mean it should be part
of PHP core. You can implement a lot of things, being implementable is a
necessary condition, but in no way sufficient. Yes, you take the risk by
implementing feature that is not accepted. But it's not an argument for
acceptance.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com