I would challenge the preconceived notion that it's likely to be rejected. It winds up being a form of circular logic. For example, you argued that previous tries failed to be approved because nobody wanted to do the work. But then you said that nobody wants to do the work because it has failed to be approved previously. Circle complete. It's also worth noting that opinions and sentiments do change over time, even in just a couple years.
Honestly, the "how" question is very important. But we can't even go there yet when we still haven't solidly figured out the "what". I do agree that the logistics of actually getting it done should be evaluated carefully before an RFC is voted on. However, right now I think that's a bit premature since we're nowhere close to that stage at this point. We don't even have a draft RFC yet, much less something that can be voted on or have test patches created for. --Kris On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Arvids Godjuks <arvids.godj...@gmail.com>wrote: > Kris i have a question for you - who will implement a test patch? Previous > tries failed not because no one wanted, but because it was damn hard and > tricky. And ofcourse there was resistance against strict type hinting. Mine > included. I doubt any of the last timeinvolved will be willing to do that > again. So that is it: who has the skill, knowlage and will to do that > knowing there is very big chance it will be rejected? >
