> On 17 בפבר׳ 2015, at 18:32, Andrey Andreev <n...@devilix.net> wrote: > > Hi, > >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: >> >> If it gave both sides exactly what they wanted, how come it generated so >> much objection? >> >> Simply put, because it absolutely doesn't give both sides what they wanted. >> Many (most?) of those who opposed it opposed it because they believe making >> zval.type as prominently available as the RFC did is bad for PHP. >> Consequently, this whole 'adding both gives everyone what they want' is >> simply wrong. > > I agree that it doesn't give everybody what they want - it only gave > weak hint supporters *all* that they want.
Andrey, I'm a weak typing supporter; I want PHP to never make it easy at the language level to treat "32" and 32 differently; The RFC did exactly that. -> The v0.3 RFC didn't give weak hint supporters everything they wanted. QED. > Many also objected because strict typing was only opt-in and could > never affect the caller's code unless the caller explicitly declares > that they want to do that. You're ignoring that and you're twisting it > the other way around. It's enough to provide one counter example to disprove an assertion - the assertion that the v0.3 RFC gave everyone what they wanted - and I provided the one I can personally attest to. I certainly didn't claim strict typing supporters got everything they wanted, so I'm not sure why I'm twisting anything. If anything, you're only making the point that the v0.3 RFC doesn't give everyone what they want stronger. I think the options we're discussing here take us away from this zero sum game, provides benefits to both schools of thought, and it seems to me as if you were open to it. I'd much rather we invested our energies there! Zeev -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
