Hello everyone,
I've been following the Static type hints discussion for a while now. Aside
from its content, which there are some strong sentiments about, there's also
another recurring pattern - the wish for voting options instead of just
yes/no.
Along these lines I've created an RFC on one
Hi Timm,
On 8 Feb 2015, at 12:04, Timm Friebe p...@thekid.de wrote:
Hello everyone,
I've been following the Static type hints discussion for a while now.
Presumably you mean scalar not static.
Aside
from its content, which there are some strong sentiments about, there's also
another
Hi,
I personally see the benefits this could have but also the BC break this
would
introduce.
[...]
I don't see the point of this: the Scalar Type Hints RFC already has a voting
option on reserving the type names, and it is set to pass, so by the time your
RFC could go to a vote, it
Hi Timm
2015-02-08 13:04 GMT+01:00 Timm Friebe p...@thekid.de:
Hello everyone,
I've been following the Static type hints discussion for a while now. Aside
from its content, which there are some strong sentiments about, there's also
another recurring pattern - the wish for voting options
Hi,
On 8 Feb 2015, at 13:32, Timm Friebe p...@thekid.de wrote:
I personally see the benefits this could have but also the BC break this
would
introduce.
[...]
I don't see the point of this: the Scalar Type Hints RFC already has a voting
option on reserving the type names, and it is set
On 8 Feb 2015, at 15:48, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
If this RFC would somehow pass, yes. However, you’re introducing a competing
proposal at the “eleventh hour”, so to speak, which is terribly nice. Unless
there’s a radical shift in how people vote on the Scalar Type Hints RFC, it
