In other words: "I'm not gonna respond to your arguments because you're a troll. None of us smart people agree with you. Nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you nyah nyah nyah!"
My response: *sticks tongue out*.... So there. ;P Now that that's settled, where were we?.... Ok, looks like we left off at Lester expressing concern over integers >1 throwing an error on booleans. If checking for that would be problematic then I have no problem letting it fail gracefully, though in an ideal world my preference would be to see something thrown in such an event. --Kris On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > Kris,**** > > ** ** > > Responses aren’t inline. I’ll go back to the mode that most other core > devs are employing right now and ignore it for the waste of time that it > is. I won’t ignore it if it ever comes to a vote, nor will the others.*** > * > > ** ** > > Troll away.**** > > ** ** > > Zeev**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:16 AM > > *To:* Zeev Suraski > *Cc:* John Crenshaw; Richard Lynch; internals@lists.php.net > *Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar type hinting**** > > ** ** > > Responses inline. > > --Kris > > **** > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote:**** > > Kris,**** > > **** > > If we’ve agreed that strict typing is bad, why is it even showing on the > discussion here? Calling it ‘firm’ or ‘strong’ doesn’t make a difference. > If it errors out or throws an exception (which BTW is out of the question > for a language feature), it’s strict typing, regardless of naming.**** > > > That is a form of cognitive dissonance, a logical fallacy. More > colloquially known as an "either or argument." > > Everyone agrees that strict C-like typing is not tenable. We've moved > past that and what's being proposed now does not rise to that level. > **** > > **** > > Thanks for pointing me to the voting procedure that I helped author. **** > > > You're welcome. > **** > > Are you essentially telling us we all have to waste our time again just > because 6 months have passed?**** > > > Yes. Though given how many people have shown an interest in this thread, > I would challenge your assertion that it is a waste of time. If you feel > as though it's a waste of *your* time, then don't waste your time. But > that doesn't give you the right to demand that we cease talking about it > just because *you* don't think it's a worthy discussion. > **** > > That alone might be reason enough to turn the OR in there into an AND > and shut down that loophole.**** > > > You're free to introduce a new RFC for that, but don't be surprised when I > and probably a number of others campaign heavily and tirelessly against > it. I don't think most people would agree with such a totalitarian > approach designed to silence dissenting views from being introduced and > discussed.**** > > The rationale behind that time period was to allow for cases where > there was an ‘almost’ majority. Here, the proposal stands no chance. The > only reason you’re not seeing anybody from the core devs responding is > because they’re tired of the Nth incarnation of the same discussion > happening again with zero new ideas.**** > > > Please refer to the Wikipedia link I posted above pertaining to "weasel > words." > > Just because a conceptually similar proposal failed two years ago doesn't > mean the discussion we're having now won't have any support. > **** > > **** > > If you can show why it makes sense to revive the discussion based on the 2 > nd bullet, that is:**** > > The author(s) make substantial changes to the proposal. While it's > impossible to put clear definitions on what constitutes 'substantial' > changes, they should be material enough so that they'll significantly > effect the outcome of another vote.**** > > **** > > … then it’s worth discussing. Nothing I saw in this thread falls under > that category, as far as I can tell.**** > > > I disagree. A number of ideas have been put forth that differ from > previous proposals. Just because *you* don't think they differ enough > does not mean you can unilaterally declare that this discussion must end. > Besides, as you said, such a standard would be completely arbitrary and > open to interpretation. It would ultimately be something that would have > to come down to a vote (unless you're planning on being the one who gets to > decide for the rest of us what's substantial and what's not), which would > render the whole argument pointless anyway, since it would essentially be a > vote on whether or not we should have a vote. That's how the United States > Congress typically operates, and we all know how effective they are....*** > * > > **** > > Let’s put it to rest.**** > > > This issue isn't going away. Again, we've already addressed this in > previous posts. You may not want to discuss it, and there may be people > who share your sentiment, but that does not give you the authority to shut > down this conversation or declare that you're going to change the RFC rules > so that we can't vote on this. If that's not what you were proposing, then > please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding. Either way, I've > already promised to push back hard against any efforts to silence the > discussion this time around, and I intend to honor that promise. > > I am still in favor of ultimately moving this conversation to a separate > location if people like Zeev are just tired of having this in their > inboxes. Plus it would give those of us who are actually interested in > this a place to brainstorm without old fear tactics periodically being > reintroduced in an effort to derail the conversation. I'll investigate > such options as soon as I have some spare moments. It's been a busy week. > =)**** > > **** > > Zeev**** > > **** > > *From:* Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:18 PM > *To:* Zeev Suraski > *Cc:* John Crenshaw; Richard Lynch; internals@lists.php.net**** > > > *Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar type hinting**** > > **** > > ....Aaaaaand here we go again. Every few days it seems, somebody jumps > into this thread and reminds us that strict typing is a bad idea, despite > the fact that we've already all agreed on that point about a gazillion > times. > > As for past RFC's, I would recommend you review the voting procedure. If > an RFC is rejected, the policy does allow it to be re-introduced after 6 > months. While we're not actually reviving a previously rejected RFC since > we're discussing a different approach, even if you were to apply that to > the broader conceptual level, this discussion is still perfectly kosher > since, as you said, that rejection happened 1.5 years ago (3 times the > required period). > > > Sorry if my tone is a bit frustrated, but I think we're all a bit annoyed > at this repetitive pattern by now. We start finding common ground and > making progress, then somebody new makes a post about the evils of strict > typing and questioning why we're talking about this, obviously completely > ignoring the fact that we've already addressed this *numerous* times. So > Zeev, while I appreciate your interest and welcome you to participate, > please take another look at the previous posts in this thread, because we > have already addressed your concerns ad nauseum and have since moved-on. I > do not want us to get dragged back into grinding our wheels in the mud on > that. Thank you for your understanding. > > --Kris**** > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote:**** > > Guys, > > I've followed this thread silently so far, and I'm wondering what changed > over the last ~1.5years that warrants a new discussion into that matter. > I think the previous discussion ended with a pretty clear directive that > strict typing has no place in PHP. Rasmus said about the proposal back > then "They aren't hints. It is strict typing and in its current form I > would ask you guys not to call the 5.4 release PHP." - which put in one > sentence what several others (myself included) put in many more words. So > the 'strong'/'firm'/'strict'/whatnot version of what is being discussed > here, should probably not be discussed at all. We've been through it, and > rejected it. > > Back when we rejected strict typing, we also 'killed' the other RFC[*] > that was born out of that old discussion - the 'weak' auto-conversion RFC. > If I recall correctly, it was for two reasons - one was that the > proponents of the strict typing said they'll firmly object weak typing, and > the other is that this RFC still had some issues that didn't seem obvious > to hammer out (main one I recall is that sticking to PHP's standard type > juggling rules meant that feature wasn't very useful, and we didn't feel > very comfortable introducing brand new type juggling rules just for that > feature). If you want to revive that discussion, I suggest you take a look > at that RFC - confine yourselves to only work on stuff that stands a chance > to get accepted (no strict typing) - and try to come up with good answers > to the open questions. No point in redoing the whole discussion from > scratch. > > Zeev > > [*]https://wiki.php.net/rfc/typecheckingstrictandweak**** > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com]**** > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:58 PM > > To: John Crenshaw**** > > > Cc: Richard Lynch; internals@lists.php.net > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar type hinting > >**** > > > Err sorry yes John is correct. I wasn't paying close enough attention. > > > > Here's *my* vision of how that progression would look: > > > > $a = "1"; // Current kosher unchanged. > > weak int $a = "1"; // Converts to 1. No error thrown.**** > > > strong int $a = "1"; // Converts to 1. May or may not throw an error > (I'm still on > > the fence). > >**** > > > $a = "blah"; // Current kosher unchanged. > > weak int $a = "blah"; // Throws E_x error level. > > strong int $a = "blah"; // Throws E_y error level. > > > > > > Where E_y > E_x. > > > > --Kris > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:52 PM, John Crenshaw > > <johncrens...@priacta.com>wrote: > > > > > No, In the example given there's an error on int $a = "1". There > > > should be no error because this juggles fine. > > > > > > John Crenshaw > > > Priacta, inc.**** > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com]**** > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:47 PM > > > To: Richard Lynch > > > Cc: internals@lists.php.net > > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar type hinting > > >**** > > > > @Richard That's fairly close to what I'm thinking, yes. But there > > > seems to be a diverse range of ideas bouncing around right now, so at > > > present it's all in flux. > > > > > > --Kris > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Richard Lynch <c...@l-i-e.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, February 27, 2012 4:34 pm, Kris Craig wrote: > > > > > I think this is the main reason for differentiating between > "strong" > > > > > (or > > > > > whatever word is appropriate) and "weak." The developer may very > > > > > well want their script to blow-up in such a case. > > > > > > > > I believe I actually "get it" now... > > > > > > > > You want 3 layers: > > > > > > > > $a = "1"; //current kosher unchanged weak int $a = "1"; // some E_x > > > > error level strong int $a = "1"; // some E_y error level where E_y > > > > > E_x > > > > > > > > Is that a correct summation?**** > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > brain cancer update: > > > > http://richardlynch.blogspot.com/search/label/brain%20tumor > > > > Donate: > > > > > > > > https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id > > > > =F > > > > S9NLTNEEKWBE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, > > > > visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > > > > > >**** > > **** > > ** ** >
