On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Andrey Andreev <n...@devilix.net> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: >> >> On 15 Jul 2014, at 20:43, Andrey Andreev <n...@devilix.net> wrote: >> >>> I'm sorry, I know what you mean here and I'm not criticizing you >>> specifically (in fact, I'm intentionally taking it ouf of context), >>> but that's "PHP internals", not "PHP community". >>> >>> The PHP community that I know, wants to have _both_ type cast hinting >>> and strict type declarations. >> >> I’m not sure that’s quite the case. There are camps wanting one, there are >> camps wanting the other, I suppose some want both, but to me that seems like >> a not-a-compromise compromise solution. The point of this RFC, to some >> extent, is to be a reasonable compromise between completely strict >> declarations and cast hinting, providing the safety of the first and the >> flexibility of the second. I think it strikes the balance well. > > Unless you really force the camps to pick one by saying "you can't > have Y if we've got X" (to which there's no technical limitation, so > that's not true), then a camp that wants X doesn't mean a camp that > doesn't want Y, so we end up with: > > Camps wanting one + camps wanting another == a larger camp that > wants all of it > > A compromise isn't excluded by this. It would just have to be a "ok, > let's do X right now and we'll think about Y later" compromise (point > being, don't exclude Y) instead of a "let's have a mixed something > between the two that nobody really, really likes" one.
To further clarify, it also doesn't mean a promise on Y, just don't provocate people to bring it up again when it's not the current task. My $0.02. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
