On Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 10:52 AM Peter Kokot <peterko...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 22:41, Zeev Suraski <z...@php.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:14 PM Derick Rethans <der...@php.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > In the last week(s) there has been a lot of chat about Zeev's P++ idea.
> > > Before we end up spending this project's time and energy to explore
> this
> > > idea further, I thought it'd be wise to see if there is enough animo
> for
> > > this. Hence, I've created a document in the wiki as a poll:
> > >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Using a humoristic tone, I'm happy that finally internals@ is so
> unified.
> > I almost get the feeling that you may not like the idea...
> >
> > On a more serious note, I'll keep the feedback on the validity of this
> vote
> > in just about every aspect (process, jurisdiction, anything really) to
> > myself, and say just two things:
> >
> > - The P++ idea makes absolutely no sense in vacuum.  The reception around
> > this idea implied a decision between 'one big happy family' and 'a
> split'.
> > Since at this stage these are the perceived choices - I'd vote against it
> > too (which I just did, why not).  However, I believe it's a false choice.
> >
> > - It will absolutely make sense to discuss it when it'll start becoming
> > clearer to everyone that 'one big happy family' is really not an option.
> > We'd be choosing how to soft split the family - granularly (2^n
> dialects),
> > into many editions (n dialects), or into two separate dialects with
> clearer
> > mandates (2 dialects).  I get it that it's intangible for many of us
> > (myself included, to a degree), which is why this idea is perceived as
> the
> > 'evil splitter' for everyone to unite and rally against.  Maybe I'm
> wrong,
> > and the changes/features that I think are about to make it into PHP
> aren't
> > going to require any sort of split.  If that's the case - it's indeed a
> > horrible idea.  We'd only be able to see that a but further down the
> road.
> > It's definitely too early to spend that level of energy on it at this
> stage
> > - but at the same time, it will definitely make sense to explore it if &
> > when the reality I think we're going to be facing would begin to unfold.
> >
> > I will not be responding to any further emails on this thread;  I'll
> > happily reply to private messages though.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Zeev
> Hello @everyone,
> this then also means that PHP will now never be a consistent language
> and short tags will be forever in so we will all be able to support
> Chase's gigantic legacy project forever?

Solution would be if we can make this issue that was mentioned:
> - elephpant vs elep++ant
> into a similar issue as is now:
> - elephpant vs elephpantwithstricttypes
> (non existent issue - all part of the one PHP itself)

Zeev(Or anyone with such energy) can take up the game with same energy
he(Zeev) took the *elep++ant *up and I bet everyone (or the majority) would
really love the newer idea(elephpant vs elephpantwithstricttypes) and
probably take it up as a non issue coz it is all in the same part of the
one PHP itself(which already have its niche and brand).

And, IMHO the strict type or cleaner version of PHP would improve many
sections of the language and even help with future implementations(maybe
sooner we might even implement more evolved and consistent aliases of
current C styled function naming) all of these and more in the same PHP
we've known.

Or perhaps, an idea is to take a break on new implementations and make some
great changes which will pave way for great ideas and innovations.

All of this are good ideas internals@ should be debating, I guess.

Reply via email to