On Feb 16, 2015 10:56 AM, "Dmitry Stogov" <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:42 PM, François Laupretre <franc...@php.net> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > De : Arvids Godjuks [mailto:arvids.godj...@gmail.com] > > > > > > The 0.1 RFC version was mentioned a lot as a good compromise by many > > > people > > > and had major support. > > > Maybe someone competent could pick it up, make necessary adjustments > > > that > > > where required and let people vote on it? Start with small steps - get > > the > > > weak type hints into the language first, see how it gets used and then we > > > can always add strict type hints if there is a need/desire to do that. > > > > > > That way we finally get type hints into the language, and those wanting > > the > > > strict variety have all the opportunities in the world to add them at a > > > later release with proper discussion and development time. > > > > That's what I am planning. If I write an RFC, it will be based on Andrea's > > 0.1/0.2 version, and won't propose different modes. > > > > I would propose exactly Andrea's 0.1. > Most people were agree to support weak type hints by default.
So a 50/50 vote is most people in favor of one type? Sorry, this is not the case. > This proposal won't prevent feature addition of optional strict type hints. > All are tired from endless arguing. Yes, we are. The only difference is one camp makes compromises and tried to find solutions. Now, deja vu scenario, we are heading exactly to what you want because we do not have any other solution. A by default single choice is not good. This is a very bad move.
