Hi, On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: > > I would propose exactly Andrea's 0.1. > Most people were agree to support weak type hints by default. > This proposal won't prevent feature addition of optional strict type hints.
Sorry, but I'll have to repeat what has been said over and over again - the 0.1 version did not have overwhelming support and quite a lot of people aren't OK with (only) weak type hints. Part of the rationale behind the 0.2+ versions was that it would be unfair to strict typing supporters if weak is accepted alone. I agree with that on 100% (although I didn't agree with the proposed solution) and it's not hard to imagine why ... Also, IMO the only way a weak-types addition will NOT prevent strict type-hints in the future is to use the foo((type) $bar) syntax that was proposed by Anthony Ferrara 2 years ago. The syntax itself being different from that of already existing class type-hints implies both that it's a weak hint and that strict typing is expected to be available in the future (although I see no reason to delay it). In no other way excluding weird strict/weak modes or a regexp-like syntax will you be able to add both features. > All are tired from endless arguing. That's not a reason to force-in a feature until it's clear that it is what we all (or at least most) really want. I hated seeing so much people supporting a proposal that they admit to not like, just so we have something at all - I don't believe that's the right approach, especially coming from tech people. Cheers, Andrey. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
