Re: [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
| From: | Andrea Faulds | Date: | Fri, 06 Feb 2015 00:32:58 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-81991@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi,
> On 6 Feb 2015, at 00:24, Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com> wrote:
>
> Oh come on... You're taking me a bit too literally. Your proposal isn't
> Java-like strict typing... I even said that.
I still disagree with the sentiment, but never mind. I realise it was just a joke.
>> No, I don’t think that’s fair. I’d be against holding a vote on strict
>> types only for the same reason: the community is divided. Letting one side
>> “win" is simply unfair on everyone else.
>
> I don't understand that statement. You mean it's not OK for any side to win
> unless you win? Or are you saying that you tried to strike a balance
> between the two parties which you hoped everyone could rally around?
The latter.
> What
> if they can't? It's all or nothing? Btw, not trying to be facetious but
> really trying to understand where you're coming from.
I just don’t feel comfortable if only one camp is satisfied. It doesn’t seem fair. While
first-past-the-post politics is “winner takes it all” (usually, anyway… but that’s way off
topic), the design of the PHP programming language shouldn’t be. Compromise doesn’t lead to
ideal solutions, sure, but it does lead to more people being happy than otherwise, if it’s a good
compromise.
>> To quote myself in the Scalar Type Hints thread, here’s a rough tally of
>> who was in favour of what in the v0.1 thread (I think “yourself” was Zeev
>> in that context):
>
> Zeev and I aren't twins (thank god for him) and aren't always in agreement
> on such topics. Looks like I am not on that list. Don't see him either
> btw…
huh?
Maybe you misunderstood me. I meant that in that list in the quote, the word “yourself” was
referring to Zeev, since that’s who I was responding to in the original email (I think). I don’t
think you were in that discussion - maybe you were and I missed you.
> Anyway, I think I need to sleep on it... I understand what you're trying to
> do. It's definitely not a crazy strict type hinting approach (which would
> be very bad)... But I find elements of it challenging…
I also have some gripes with this RFC - declare() isn’t the nicest of things to have to type on
every file. But, I think it seems to work out better overall than all the numerous other proposals
I’ve seen so far, and that’s why I like it.
I also need sleep.
Goodnight!
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/