# scalar type hinting? - Thread: https://externals.io/message/48382 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/48382 - Started by Philip Olson on 2010-05-22T14:51:24+00:00 - Messages: 7 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #48382 — Philip Olson — 2010-05-22T14:51:24+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/48382#48382 The documentation team is about to document a few trunk features, but we're unsure about scalar type hinting. I see no final proposal (only three old RFC's) nor recent discussion here. Is the recent scalar type hinting commit meant to bring discussion to the topic? Or, has this form of scalar type hinting been finalized somewhere? Please advise. Regards, Philip --- ## #48383 — Zeev Suraski — 2010-05-22T14:56:21+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/48382#48383 · In reply to: #48382 Not sure what happened here, but scalar type hinting was still up for discussion as there are two conflicting RFCs. Not sure how come a version of it was committed to trunk, so it should definitely not be documented at this time. Zeev At 17:51 22/05/2010, Philip Olson wrote: >The documentation team is about to document a few trunk features, >but we're unsure about scalar type hinting. I see no final proposal >(only three old RFC's) nor recent discussion here. Is the recent >scalar type hinting commit meant to bring discussion to the topic? >Or, has this form of scalar type hinting been finalized somewhere? >Please advise. > >Regards, >Philip --- ## #48385 — Pierre Joye — 2010-05-22T15:04:33+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/48382#48385 · In reply to: #48383 hi Zeev, It seems that there was a bit of discussions on IRC about committing Ilia's implementation. However it is trunk, and trunk is a development tree. That means its purpose is to develop new PHP features. But it does not meant that these features will make it in the next releases or if they will remain as they are now. Cheers, > Not sure what happened here, but scalar type hinting was still up for > discussion as there are two conflicting RFCs. > > Not sure how come a version of it was committed to trunk, so it should > definitely not be documented at this time. > > Zeev > > At 17:51 22/05/2010, Philip Olson wrote: > > > […] > > > -- > > > > -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #48386 — Zeev Suraski — 2010-05-22T15:10:45+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/48382#48386 · In reply to: #48385 Maybe I view trunk in a different way than others, but I think committing it turns it into some sort of 'status quo', and now we'd need a good reason to change it. I think major developments should be discussed on internals (IRC's fine, but not enough), and should be discussed before committing to trunk. Zeev At 18:04 22/05/2010, Pierre Joye wrote: >hi Zeev, > >It seems that there was a bit of discussions on IRC about committing >Ilia's implementation. However it is trunk, and trunk is a development >tree. That means its purpose is to develop new PHP features. But it >does not meant that these features will make it in the next releases >or if they will remain as they are now. > >Cheers, > > > > […] > (only three > > […] > > > >-- >Pierre > >@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #48389 — Ilia Alshanetsky — 2010-05-22T15:49:52+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/48382#48389 · In reply to: #48386 Zeev, There was a comprehensive discussion on this functionality a few months back on the mailing list and the overall consensus was that the functionality made sense (as was committed) but was to late in the game to be part of the 5.3 branch. So, now that the trunk has been established it went in. > Maybe I view trunk in a different way than others, but I think committing > it turns it into some sort of 'status quo', and now we'd need a good reason > to change it. > > I think major developments should be discussed on internals (IRC's fine, > but not enough), and should be discussed before committing to trunk. > > Zeev > > At 18:04 22/05/2010, Pierre Joye wrote: > > > […] --- ## #48390 — Zeev Suraski — 2010-05-22T15:56:37+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/48382#48390 · In reply to: #48389 At 18:49 22/05/2010, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >Zeev, > >There was a comprehensive discussion on this functionality a few >months back on the mailing list and the overall consensus was that >the functionality made sense (as was committed) but was to late in >the game to be part of the 5.3 branch. So, now that the trunk has >been established it went in. Ilia, There was discussion about it, where I as well as many others expressed objections to the proposed solution - there clearly wasn't consensus. I mentioned numerous times that we need to discuss it again before moving ahead to implement. Zeev --- ## #48404 — Stas Malyshev — 2010-05-23T08:28:00+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/48382#48404 · In reply to: #48389 Hi! > There was a comprehensive discussion on this functionality a few months back > on the mailing list and the overall consensus was that the functionality > made sense (as was committed) but was to late in the game to be part of the > 5.3 branch. So, now that the trunk has been established it went in. I remember that there were opposition to this way of doing it, from myself and other people, and these concerns were never answered adequately. So I consider it being more matter of "better ask forgiveness than permission" that consensus thing. I personally still think that as it is done it is not the best way to do it. My recollection - maybe wrong - was that we wanted to go back to it after 5.3, but wasn't that there was a decision to commit it as-is (even without cleaning out Unicode stuff...) As for discussions on IRC, please remember that not everybody can hang out on IRC, that's why we have internals list. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227