@Simon If it's ok with you, I would like to set this aside briefly and divert our attention toward the RFC voting thing, primarily because I think that will make the drafting process much easier and less confusing when we're ready to start working on the typing RFC initial draft. Any objections?
If not, I'll go ahead and draft an RFC for these proposed amendments sometime today or tomorrow when I get a spare moment. If anyone has any thoughts on this, please share them! Thanks! --Kris On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Simon Schick <simonsimc...@googlemail.com>wrote: > Hi, all > > What's next? > > I think the next step would be to write down a good Introduction, > Requirement, Solution and Examples. > > As we had some discussions and ideas around here I think we came to a > proper place where we could write the first draft and discuss it after > writing it down in one place. > I wont have the time tomorrow but I'll try my best to get it done at the > weekend. > > If someone else has a good overview and wants to write the RFC, just go > ahead and ping me when you've started. > > @Kris: > I like the idea of having a second vote-level. The first level could be > "Like / Dislike this feature" and the second one could be "Like Solution1 / > Like Solution2 / Like Solution3" > > Bye > Simon > > > 2012/3/1 Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> > >> @Simon Well said! For some reason, the issue of typing in the PHP and >> other programming communities brings out a lot of emotion in people. Given >> some of the heated rhetoric we've seen, you'd think we were debating >> whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned lol. >> >> I think it is important that we try to remember to be civil, on both >> sides. Falling into cliche hyperbole, condescention, and personal attacks >> just makes us look immature to the outside world IMHO. I'll try to do my >> part and not fly off the handle so much whenever somebody jumps in with a >> dismissive, patronizing comment relating to something that was already >> addressed earlier. >> >> Regarding the RFCs, just to clarify my earlier remarks, I should mention >> that the current policy, at least as I understand it, does not provide for >> expiring old/abandoned RFCs. The idea that it should was just a >> recommendation on my part. That said, I think you've got the right idea by >> looking at previous RFCs for insight into this! All I was saying is that, >> when it comes time to put forth our own proposal(s), it would probably be >> easier to write it from the ground up instead of trying to modify a bunch >> of older ones. =) >> >> >> Oh and if anybody has any thoughts on the suggestion I made earlier about >> adding "secondary questions" to the voting procedure (please read it before >> commenting), I'd love to hear them! I think that could be very helpful in >> future RFCs, so if there's any interest I'll go ahead and draft one for >> this. >> >> --Kris >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Simon Schick < >> simonsimc...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, All >>> >>> Sorry for pulling the old RFCs out. But why is their status is still *in >>> draft* or something like that? I did not know something about the >>> 6-month-rule. >>> That's also what I mentioned before with the missing solution ... If you >>> close an RFC or set it to *accepted*, please also write what has been >>> accepted. Btw: the old RFCs need to be cleaned up some when ... archived ... >>> >>> As I see from your mails, you're not in detail following this >>> conversation. >>> Btw. The conversation got quite down to a personal level in the last >>> hours ... not really talking about facts and arguments. >>> >>> I don't want a strict/weak type-binding of variables, either do I want >>> something strict if you pass stuff into a function. >>> I simply want to define a type for each argument of a function/method. >>> If someone calls this function with a parameter that is not compatible with >>> the required type, let it break. >>> >>> The other RFCs were just something I saw on my way. That's nothing I >>> personally wanted to push forward (not right now at least) but they fit in >>> our discussion and were written in an RFC that was related to what I wanted. >>> >>> @Kris: >>> >>> > I prefer the latter, which is why I am now pushing this. >>> What I am very thankful for ;) >>> >>> Bye >>> Simon >>> >>> >>> 2012/2/29 Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> With all due respect, it's a logical fallacy to draw a direct comparison >>>> between these two simply because they both happen to be uphill battles. >>>> >>>> We've demonstrated in this discussion that it can, in fact, be done >>>> without >>>> breaking the PHP concept at all. The only consistent argument I'm >>>> hearing >>>> against it is, "It's been voted down before." And yet, it keeps coming >>>> up. Why do you suppose that is? Mind you, this is the first time that >>>> I >>>> have ever brought this up. So it's not just me. Ignoring this >>>> obviously >>>> hasn't made it go away. We can either continue sitting in denial and >>>> whining whenever somebody brings this up, or we can finally stop >>>> procrastinating and take on the unpleasant task of actually working this >>>> out. PHP 6 presents the perfect opportunity for something like this >>>> anyway. >>>> >>>> >>>> Voting it down hasn't made it go away. What is it they say about the >>>> definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and >>>> expecting a different result. This concept has been proposed in many >>>> different ways, but now it seems like some of you have decided to just >>>> vote >>>> it down because you're tired of it being talked about. But that hasn't >>>> worked, has it? And it won't. So we can either keep doing this every 6 >>>> months or we can try to work something out that addresses this finally. >>>> Even if we were to take the totalitarian approach of restricting the >>>> voting >>>> process, that wouldn't stop people from bringing this up on the list, so >>>> the "problem" of people continuing to bring this up would still go on. >>>> >>>> Seriously, just step back and look at this from a practical, logical >>>> standpoint. What we've been doing hasn't worked. Summarily voting >>>> anything resembling this down to make it go away hasn't made it go away. >>>> One of the main reasons I finally jumped into this discussion after all >>>> these years is because I noticed this pattern was once again repeating >>>> itself in the enum thread. This isn't going to just magically go away. >>>> People aren't going to "see the light" and suddenly stop asking for this >>>> just because they've realized the core devs decided to click the >>>> "ignore" >>>> button. We can either keep repeating this pattern or we can step out of >>>> denial and finally address this. I prefer the latter, which is why I am >>>> now pushing this. >>>> >>>> --Kris >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Matt Wilson <sha...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> > I once pushed this hard for namespaces. Then, after years of it being >>>> shot >>>> > down, they did it. >>>> > >>>> > And now I'm sad. It didn't occur to me until after it had been >>>> implemented >>>> > how bad an idea it was for php. I think this is one of those times. >>>> > >>>> > Type hinting is wonderful, but i'm not sure you could really make it >>>> fit >>>> > in php without bastardizing the concept. >>>> > >>>> > The last time I looked at this discussion, I saw something about >>>> call-time >>>> > silent type conversion (essentially foo((int) $bar)) and if that's not >>>> > bastardizing a concept... >>>> > >>>> > I think the community has spoken. And when the core devs put their >>>> foot >>>> > down, I think it's best to listen. If it's so important to you, then >>>> by all >>>> > means, fork. Or simply write a patch. Put it to a vote. But this is >>>> beating >>>> > a very dead horse. >>>> > >>>> > -M >>>> > >>>> > On Feb 29, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Kris Craig wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > I agree. I'm against strict type hinting as well. Of course, >>>> nobody >>>> > here >>>> > > is suggesting that we should go with strict typing, so it's a moot >>>> > question >>>> > > anyway. >>>> > > >>>> > > --Kris >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Arvids Godjuks < >>>> > arvids.godj...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > >> Please.read my emails carefuly. What i said is last time the work >>>> has >>>> > been >>>> > >> done, and two different patches have been developed and iterated. >>>> But >>>> > >> dificulties in implementation and strong resistance from the devs >>>> and >>>> > >> comunity got it killed. I actually had a post on our biggest >>>> russian >>>> > >> speaking IT resource and results shown that majority of comunity >>>> was >>>> > >> against strict type hinting - it does not fit PHP philosophy. >>>> Simple as >>>> > >> that. >>>> > >> Thats all, if you cant unders >>>> > >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >> >
