Hi, All Sorry for pulling the old RFCs out. But why is their status is still *in draft* or something like that? I did not know something about the 6-month-rule. That's also what I mentioned before with the missing solution ... If you close an RFC or set it to *accepted*, please also write what has been accepted. Btw: the old RFCs need to be cleaned up some when ... archived ...
As I see from your mails, you're not in detail following this conversation. Btw. The conversation got quite down to a personal level in the last hours ... not really talking about facts and arguments. I don't want a strict/weak type-binding of variables, either do I want something strict if you pass stuff into a function. I simply want to define a type for each argument of a function/method. If someone calls this function with a parameter that is not compatible with the required type, let it break. The other RFCs were just something I saw on my way. That's nothing I personally wanted to push forward (not right now at least) but they fit in our discussion and were written in an RFC that was related to what I wanted. @Kris: > I prefer the latter, which is why I am now pushing this. What I am very thankful for ;) Bye Simon 2012/2/29 Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> > With all due respect, it's a logical fallacy to draw a direct comparison > between these two simply because they both happen to be uphill battles. > > We've demonstrated in this discussion that it can, in fact, be done without > breaking the PHP concept at all. The only consistent argument I'm hearing > against it is, "It's been voted down before." And yet, it keeps coming > up. Why do you suppose that is? Mind you, this is the first time that I > have ever brought this up. So it's not just me. Ignoring this obviously > hasn't made it go away. We can either continue sitting in denial and > whining whenever somebody brings this up, or we can finally stop > procrastinating and take on the unpleasant task of actually working this > out. PHP 6 presents the perfect opportunity for something like this > anyway. > > > Voting it down hasn't made it go away. What is it they say about the > definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and > expecting a different result. This concept has been proposed in many > different ways, but now it seems like some of you have decided to just vote > it down because you're tired of it being talked about. But that hasn't > worked, has it? And it won't. So we can either keep doing this every 6 > months or we can try to work something out that addresses this finally. > Even if we were to take the totalitarian approach of restricting the voting > process, that wouldn't stop people from bringing this up on the list, so > the "problem" of people continuing to bring this up would still go on. > > Seriously, just step back and look at this from a practical, logical > standpoint. What we've been doing hasn't worked. Summarily voting > anything resembling this down to make it go away hasn't made it go away. > One of the main reasons I finally jumped into this discussion after all > these years is because I noticed this pattern was once again repeating > itself in the enum thread. This isn't going to just magically go away. > People aren't going to "see the light" and suddenly stop asking for this > just because they've realized the core devs decided to click the "ignore" > button. We can either keep repeating this pattern or we can step out of > denial and finally address this. I prefer the latter, which is why I am > now pushing this. > > --Kris > > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Matt Wilson <sha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I once pushed this hard for namespaces. Then, after years of it being > shot > > down, they did it. > > > > And now I'm sad. It didn't occur to me until after it had been > implemented > > how bad an idea it was for php. I think this is one of those times. > > > > Type hinting is wonderful, but i'm not sure you could really make it fit > > in php without bastardizing the concept. > > > > The last time I looked at this discussion, I saw something about > call-time > > silent type conversion (essentially foo((int) $bar)) and if that's not > > bastardizing a concept... > > > > I think the community has spoken. And when the core devs put their foot > > down, I think it's best to listen. If it's so important to you, then by > all > > means, fork. Or simply write a patch. Put it to a vote. But this is > beating > > a very dead horse. > > > > -M > > > > On Feb 29, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Kris Craig wrote: > > > > > I agree. I'm against strict type hinting as well. Of course, nobody > > here > > > is suggesting that we should go with strict typing, so it's a moot > > question > > > anyway. > > > > > > --Kris > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Arvids Godjuks < > > arvids.godj...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > >> Please.read my emails carefuly. What i said is last time the work has > > been > > >> done, and two different patches have been developed and iterated. But > > >> dificulties in implementation and strong resistance from the devs and > > >> comunity got it killed. I actually had a post on our biggest russian > > >> speaking IT resource and results shown that majority of comunity was > > >> against strict type hinting - it does not fit PHP philosophy. Simple > as > > >> that. > > >> Thats all, if you cant unders > > >> > > > > >
