Hi, On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 5:48 PM >> To: Zeev Suraski >> Cc: franc...@php.net; Sara Golemon; PHP internals >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Reviving scalar type hints >> >> Zeev et al, >> >> Because it >> **wasn't** a compromise (neither side had to give up anything). It gave >> both >> sides exactly what they want and need while letting them work together >> transparently. > > If it gave both sides exactly what they wanted, how come it generated so > much objection? > > Simply put, because it absolutely doesn't give both sides what they wanted. > Many (most?) of those who opposed it opposed it because they believe making > zval.type as prominently available as the RFC did is bad for PHP. > Consequently, this whole 'adding both gives everyone what they want' is > simply wrong.
I agree that it doesn't give everybody what they want - it only gave weak hint supporters *all* that they want. Many also objected because strict typing was only opt-in and could never affect the caller's code unless the caller explicitly declares that they want to do that. You're ignoring that and you're twisting it the other way around. Cheers, Andrey. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
