Le Thu Feb 05 2015 at 21:15:45, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> a écrit :
Good evening, > > At long last, I’m going to put the RFC to a vote. It’s been long enough - > I don’t think there needs to be, or will be, much further discussion. > > I’d like to make sure that everyone voting understands the RFC fully. > Please read the RFC in full: the details are important. And if anyone has > any questions or uncertainties, please ask them before voting. I am very > happy to answer them. > > I would urge everyone who wants type hints to vote for this RFC. It is not > a perfect solution, but there can be no perfect solution to this issue. > However, I think it is better than most of the alternatives suggested thus > far - see the rationale section, and previous discussions. Crucially, this > RFC would keep PHP a weakly-typed language, and not force either strict > typing, nor weak typing, on anyone who does not want it. It would allow the > addition of type hints to existing codebases. It would not create a > situation where userland functions are strict yet internal functions are > not, because the strict mode affects both. I’ve tested the implementation > myself on my own code, and it worked well, providing benefits other > proposals would not have given (see my previous post about my experiences). > > Voting starts today (2015-02-05) and ends in two weeks’ time (2015-02-19). > In addition to the vote on the main RFC, there is also a vote on the type > aliases issue, and a vote to reserve the type names for future RFCs’ sake > if this RFC fails. > > The RFC can be found here, and it contains a voting widget: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/scalar_type_hints > > Thank you for your time. > > -- > Andrea Faulds > http://ajf.me/ > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > Voted "no" because of the reasons already mentioned by a bunch of others here. Weak type hint as presented earlier: +1 (and very good job Andrea about that!). declare(strict_types=1): -1, not only about the syntax, but also about the mixed mode it introduces. I'm pretty confident that this RFC will "pass" with just above 2/3 of majority while it could reach much more. I am pretty sure that if this RFC doesn't include a strict type mode _the way it is proposed_ (or even, not at all, as part of another related RFC), it would have some "no" converted to "yes" and would have a wider adoption, which is for sure a better option than relying on a voting mechanism which still is a supporting tool, we're not politicians after all :) Andi's suggestion about an E_STRICT_TYPES sounds very reasonable and much more in line with how PHP deals with "errors". However, I think this should be discussed separately as this is really about the A + B think that Zeev was talking about. Cheers, Patrick
