Hi Zeev, > On 9 Feb 2015, at 17:03, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > > I'll make an absolute last attempt to explain what I'm saying, after that > we can agree to disagree. We probably interpret the same facts > differently. > > Fact is, there were very few people who said that weak types are *bad* > (although Sebastian seems to fall in that category). The vast majority of > feedback that 'opposed' weak typing, didn't really oppose weak typing at > all. What it opposed was, rather, the lack of introducing strict typing. > That is clearly not the same thing, which is why the fact there were > people who opposed v0.1 of the RFC does not equate with people opposing > weak typing, not at all. > > Each and every person that voted in favor of the v0.3 RFC, voted in favor > of weak typing. Weak typing is not only a key element of that RFC - it's > even the default behavior. In addition to everyone who voted in favor of > the v0.3 RFC, many - most probably most of the people who voted against > it- are in favor of the weak typing API. If you combine the two groups, > you're going to get to nearly 100% support, or arguably, 'lack of > opposition', to the weak typing proposal.
First off, it’s really unfair to claim that merely because someone votes for this RFC, that they are okay with weak typing. It’s a compromise proposal: I’m not a big fan of weak typing, not by any means, and plenty of other people aren’t either, but this RFC allows me to use strict typing and others to use weak typing, without us getting in each other’s way. So, I am in favour of this RFC. I *do not like* weak typing. But I am willing to vote for and push for this RFC, if it means we’ll get scalar types somehow (and, crucially, it allows *strict* scalar types). People who are in favour of this RFC are *not* necessarily in favour of weak types, or adding weak types on their own. Anyway, to the main point. I’m pretty sure that you’re wrong in saying that the vast majority of the people who opposed the introduction of weak scalar types, and *only* weak scalar types in the v0.1 RFC, were actually okay with weak typing. That does not go with my experiences at all. From what I have seen, a large number of people are opposed to weakly-typed parameters, period. But let’s assume that you’re correct for a moment. Let’s say that, hypothetically, 100% of the people in the v0.1 thread (absolute consensus, then) had no opposition to the idea of weak typing, and the only complaint anyone had was that strict typing wasn’t also being added. This doesn’t help your case. In fact, it hurts it. Firstly, while there may be this hypothetical consensus around weak types, the v0.1 RFC showed there was definitely NOT consensus around adding weak types *on their own*. Yet that was what you are arguing: that their would be consensus, or is consensus, around just adding weak types. So, merely adding weak types, and not strict types, is not something there’s a consensus on, and is not something everyone can agree on, despite what you have been arguing. Secondly, you are saying that the only opposition to v0.1 was that it did not also introduce strict types. So, therefore, this new version of the RFC which introduces strict typing alongside weak typing, should surely be more popular, no? I do not understand your logic. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
