On Wed, 19 Jun 2024, 09:31 Robert Landers, <landers.rob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The problem isn't so much this, but in that it has become a dogma to > "have working types" and trying to explain why they do or do not > need/want it in the current context becomes a hopeless argument > because you are attacking their world-view instead of having an > academic argument > If the feature was an RFC being introduced today and you were suggesting using a better, more descriptive name than strict_types I'd agree. But it is what it is, it's already in the language, it's already very widely used and changing the name now won't solve any problem, to whatever extent that problem exists (which I honestly don't think is very big), of there being a cohort of users who rigidly stick to using this declare because they've been told they should always do so, or because they have a dogmatic opinion about how PHP's type system should work in their ideal of the language. Both those groups would continue to use the directive everywhere, regardless of what it was called. And it's their code, their right. No one is under any obligation to engage in an academic argument to justify design decisions in code they own. -Dave >
