On Feb 21, 2015 4:29 PM, "François Laupretre" <franc...@php.net> wrote: > > > De : Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com] > > Saying that turning on an optional and previously unavailable option inside > > code causing code breaks is any way a " BC" break is pure FUD. > > Who talked of BC break for this ? > > I probably missed something because there's no BC break here, just an extremely probable disaster scenario. > > If people massively turn strict-type on because they see on twitter/google/fantasm that it is detecting more errors (and history shows it *will* happen), we have a big problem, because can only be massive casting. Nothing exaggerated here and history again shows that 'people know what they're doing' is not serious. > > "Strict types are sexy. I want to use them on my old codebase. It will help me finding bugs". Human. Basic. Don't think that's FUD.
Saying that everyone will turn it on in every possible situations or legacy codes is FUD and pure speculation. My gut feeling, having quite a large users base to back my rough estimation, is that most won't even know or notice it. > Regards > > François > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >
