Hi! > No, my point was that you pulled the card "those languages don't have > these structural typing thigns". And I showed one reason they don't.
Sorry, it was you who pulled the card of "other dynamic languages have duck typing". I have showed that what other dynamic languages have and what they call duck typing, PHP has too, and has had since forever. What you call duck typing is completely different and no non-statically-typed language, as far as I can see, has it at all. You can argue PHP should be a first dynamic typing language in the world to feature this kind of type checking, but when you say "In fact most other dynamic languages use this as the basis for their OOP system" - you can not use this to support your proposal, because what they are doing is very different from what you are doing, and in fact none of them are doing what you are doing at all. > All I know is what I experience and the experiences of those that I talk > to. I have seen the usefulness here. And I know others have (they > have expressed it here and in other channels). The only thing left is to move from "I see the usefuless" to "I can show the usefulness to others in a convincing way". > It's something that community leaders like us have to do. Branch out and > realize that our own perceptions and viewpoints are going to > be naturally biased by our experiences. And that's why > I suggested reaching out to other community maintainers for some insight > into what problems they face. Great. Please do reach out and provide some insight of what problems require such approach and why. So far the best argument I have seen for this proposal is that it allows to convert E_ERROR to E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR. I don't think it's nearly enough for introducing a new and unprecedented typing system into the language. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
