On 11 August 2010 23:26, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > matter how much I try to explain - it won't help - we probably see things > too differently for us to ever agree on it. Let's end it by saying that a > great deal of people here think it's horrible to introduce strict typing to > PHP period.
Sure, as long as you don't present your opinion as a fact and we acknowledge that a lot of people also think that type checking is desirable. (as evidenced by the various "strict typing" patches we have seen) I would never try to change your opinions. > The opposition to strict typing was that it's 'evil', and we mustn't > introduce it into PHP. Yes, and we know how overused the argument "X is evil" is. > The opposition to auto-converting type hints was that strict typing is > supposedly better. I think I read some mails to that effect the last time that discussion ran its course. > Now that strict typing is pretty clearly off the table - how would those Wait, what? Clearly off the table? Derick has restarted the discussion 23 hours ago and judging from his last mail he his still writing a new patch and you're already calling it "off the table" ? =\ > that supported it vote between doing nothing at all and 'settling' for > auto-converting type hints? That's the real question on the table now. The only question I have read from a developer about what kind of type hints would satisfy the community was from Derick, 23 hours ago and the question was "[supporting both kinds of typing] [s]hould make everybody happy (enough), right?" - So right now I would say that it is literally the only question being asked. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
