Hi Zeev, > On 14 Jan 2015, at 13:35, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > > I don’t think we’re ever going to get consensus. But judging by the feedback > to the v0.1 version, I tend to disagree that the opposers would have blocked > it. There were certainly opposers – but not that many of them as far as I > could tell. I think it stood a good chance to pass at a 2/3. Unlike strict > typing – we didn’t even go to a vote on it, which I think is unfortunate (and > should be changed, before changing course completely as this v0.2 suggests). > > We’re definitely not going to have consensus on introducing both options as > per this RFC. I for one think it’s the worst possible option.
It’s certainly possible it would’ve succeeded on internals. However, it is also worth considering the opinions of those who do not frequent internals and don’t have the right to vote. From what I can see, the larger PHP community is generally in favour of strict typing, and among them, the previous RFC revision was received quite poorly. Myself, I might have been somewhat happy with just weak hints, but it would upset an awful lot of developers who would like some measure of strict typing. Developers who would most likely not use the new scalar type hints, because they weren’t strict. And if nobody uses them, why add them? This revision hopes to possibly placate both weak and strict typing advocates. Of course, it also will lose some support in that it allows a choice. Plus, it gives the user choice, not the API designer, which I expect will be somewhat controversial. But I am hopeful. Thanks. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
