On 13 March 2015 at 17:24, Marcio Almada <marcio.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > At the time I'm witting this, the "Coercive Scalar Types" RFC needs 52 > "yes" votes to reach minimum ratio. This RFC was well discussed and people > justified their "no" votes quite verbosely on the respective thread. Being > practical, we all know it has no chances to pass. > > By keeping this vote running we put in risk all the advancements that are > already so close to be consolidated. Loosing this opportunity would be > damaging for both the major part of the community and the RFC process > itself, IMMO, specially because the dual mode RFC already reached super > majority and the voting would be closed today. > > The concurrent RFC, that is now clearly rejected, had its chance and > failed. I agree that dropping the vote for "Coercive Scalar Typehints" is > the logical (even noble) attitude in such context. Please let's not drag > this situation for more two weeks for nothing.
Indeed, at this point in time the Coercive RFC is considered harmful, a lot of damage has already been done, but we can at least try and mitigate further damage. Many people who have been coerced (see what I did there?) into voting for the coercive RFC have voted against the dual-mode RFC out of principal. Yes for one is No for another, makes sense. How many do you think will revisit their vote if one RFC is retracted? So I also urge people to consider this. Do you want scalar type hints in the language? If there was only the dual-mode RFC, would you vote for it? If the answer to both of those is Yes, then you should consider supporting the option that actually stands a chance of passing. If you're in the strict camp, and you're voting against because you don't want to declare strict in every file, there are ways around this. Don't oppose the RFC simply on this issue alone. Cheers, Leigh. On 13 March 2015 at 17:24, Marcio Almada <marcio.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > 2015-03-13 12:45 GMT-03:00 Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com>: > >> All, >> [...] >> I respectfully ask Zeev to retract his current proposal as it's >> currently failing with 68% of voters voting against it (currently >> 16:34). Without extending the timeline for 7, there's very little >> chance of it passing. So rather than dragging out the entire process >> needlessly for 2 more weeks, can we just finally be done with it? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Anthony >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> >> > At the time I'm witting this, the "Coercive Scalar Types" RFC needs 52 > "yes" votes to reach minimum ratio. This RFC was well discussed and people > justified their "no" votes quite verbosely on the respective thread. Being > practical, we all know it has no chances to pass. > > By keeping this vote running we put in risk all the advancements that are > already so close to be consolidated. Loosing this opportunity would be > damaging for both the major part of the community and the RFC process > itself, IMMO, specially because the dual mode RFC already reached super > majority and the voting would be closed today. > > The concurrent RFC, that is now clearly rejected, had its chance and > failed. I agree that dropping the vote for "Coercive Scalar Typehints" is > the logical (even noble) attitude in such context. Please let's not drag > this situation for more two weeks for nothing. > > Regards, > Márcio -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
