Le Fri Feb 13 2015 at 12:34:29, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> a écrit :
> > On 13 בפבר׳ 2015, at 13:13, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 13 Feb 2015, at 09:37, 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 :) > > > It wouldn’t have wider adoption. Excluding a large portion of the PHP > community (which favours strict types) and giving them something which > doesn’t work for their use cases (weak types) is not going to win any fans. > > > Any fans? Really? > > How about we put it to a test instead of guessing the outcome? > I'm wondering who would change their vote from "no" to "yes" if we consider a related, but separate, RFC for handling types in a more "strict" way. I most probably would! I guess (I don't pretend being in everyone's head), that few would do the opposite: changing their "yes" to "no" because of that. That is a lot of "guess" (whatever the sides) and measuring the opinions would be more appropriate IMHO. Cheers and have a nice WE everyone! Patrick
