On 30 March 2015 at 15:16, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > All, > > > > One thing that I think we should change is how we refer to the ‘weak’ type > hints. The word ‘weak’ has a negative ring to it, and considering this is > how the language behaves across the board it’s a pretty bad name for this > feature. > > > > Personally I think we should go for ‘dynamic’ when we document it, as this > is the common way to refer to this behavior (dynamic languages). We could > also consider going for ‘lax’ or ‘lenient’ as the opposite of ‘strict’, > although I think we can easily do without introducing a new word into the > vocabulary here. > > > > Thoughts? > > To me, "dynamic" implies "subject to change". The rules are different but they are fixed and well defined.
I would suggest "loose" if you want to avoid "weak" (personally I think "weak" is OK, but I can certainly see where you are coming from). "Loose typing" is not new terminology, indeed Google seem to consider it synonymous with "weak typing" - when I Google either the first hit is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_and_weak_typing > > > Zeev >
