On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith <m...@pooteeweet.org>wrote:
> > On 28.05.2010, at 11:50, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > > > > On 28.05.2010, at 11:22, Etienne Kneuss wrote: > > > >> so, it would be nice to update the RFC(s), so that we have a solid > >> ground on which we can discuss/vote. > > > > > > i agree. i currently see 5 fundamental different options on the table: > > > > 1) current trunk > > 2) current trunk but only with scalar/numeric type support > > 3) weak typing with current PHP conversion rules that raise an E_STRICT > on data loss > > 4) weak typing with new conversion rules > > 5) some syntax to allow both one of 1)/2) and 3)/4)/5) > > > > i can take care of 3), 4) and 5) over the weekend, though for 4b) (see > below) i would like to get some feedback from others > > > > other than that i agree that we have beat this horse long enough that we > can then pretty quickly move to a vote. that being said, i think we should > do the vote by allowing people to then sort the RFC's in order of preference > with the option of leaving options out that they want to veto. > > > > of course if 6) gets voted for we would then have to decide on which of > the permutations (1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 2/3, 2/4, 2/5) to go with in a second vote. > > > ok .. i adjusted the weak type hinting RFC to cover 3) and 4). > so i guess it would be nice if someone could create and RFC for 2) (as I > guess the strict typing RFC covers 1)?) and if someone believes in a > combined approach (Derick?) create an RFC for 5). > if someone wants to do an SPL based exception approach, feel free to create > a new RFC. > > http://wiki.php.net/rfc/splweaktypehintingwithautoboxing Sorry for my poor english grammar, feel free to correct/expand/challenge it. Tyrael
