Re: Type hinting

On 28.05.2010, at 11:50, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > On 28.05.2010, at 11:22, Etienne Kneuss wrote: > >> so, it would be nice to update the RFC(s), so that we have a solid >> ground on which we can discuss/vote. > > > i agree. i currently see 5 fundamental different options on the table: > > 1) current trunk > 2) current trunk but only with scalar/numeric type support > 3) weak typing with current PHP conversion rules that raise an E_STRICT on data loss > 4) weak typing with new conversion rules > 5) some syntax to allow both one of 1)/2) and 3)/4)/5) > > i can take care of 3), 4) and 5) over the weekend, though for 4b) (see below) i would like to > get some feedback from others > > other than that i agree that we have beat this horse long enough that we can then pretty > quickly move to a vote. that being said, i think we should do the vote by allowing people to then > sort the RFC's in order of preference with the option of leaving options out that they want to > veto. > > of course if 6) gets voted for we would then have to decide on which of the permutations (1/3, > 1/4, 1/5, 2/3, 2/4, 2/5) to go with in a second vote. ok .. i adjusted the weak type hinting RFC to cover 3) and 4). so i guess it would be nice if someone could create and RFC for 2) (as I guess the strict typing RFC covers 1)?) and if someone believes in a combined approach (Derick?) create an RFC for 5). if someone wants to do an SPL based exception approach, feel free to create a new RFC. regards, Lukas Kahwe Smith mls@pooteeweet.org