Hi all, On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Patrick ALLAERT <patrickalla...@php.net> wrote:
> 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. > For the same reason, I voted "no". Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net
