Re: [RFC] Basic Scalar Types

"guilhermeblanco@gmail.com" <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com> schreef op 13 maart 2015 18:57:35 GMT+00:00: >+1 on this, as this is more inline with how ZPP currently works, >creating >less headaches to end users. > >On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Stelian Mocanita <stelianm@php.net> >wrote: > >> So to get it clear for everyone: the right way is for internals to >ignore >> community as a >> whole, stick to their own views and implement something nobody >actually >> wants - just >> because there is no time - on the idea that "something is better >than >> nothing"? >> >> Without pointing any fingers it sure looks like a stalling tactic >where >> someone >> eventually gets what they want. >> >> Highly disappointed on this outcome. >> >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Eli <eli@eliw.com> wrote: >> >> > Not that another +1 is needed, but I'm with Andi here. I do >personally >> > like this 3rd proposal as an option, if nothing else because it >> > implements the 'simpler base' at the moment, and allows us, once >people >> > are used to this being part of the language, to continue to evolve >> > later. And that evolution can be based upon our real world >experience >> > of using this 'base level' of typehinting for a while. >> > >> > Versus the more complicated versions, of which both Zeev's and >Anthony's >> > are. In each their own way. >> > >> > Eli >> > >> > On 3/13/15 1:17 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote: >> > > Agree and I would vote +1 on this even if I'd prefer coercive. It >is a >> > > very valid option for a 7.0 and it is future proof. >> > >> > -- >> > | Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: >> > EliW | >> > >> > >> > >> Chance of this RFC passing is going to be slim, as it only caters for one of the three groups that Antony described... I certainly will vote against it.