Hi Zeev,
> On 8 Feb 2015, at 23:24, Zeev Suraski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It's not stretching the truth or even slightly bending it, considering the
> RFC currently being voted on is a superset of that RFC.
That has no relevancy.
> There's zero or virtually zero controversy surrounding the weak typing RFC,
> the one that was v0.1. The controversy wasn't (and isn't) about what was in
> v0.1, but rather, about what wasn't in there, namely, strict typing;
So, then, there was controversy around that RFC.
> The way it should have went is voting on the weak typing RFC, around which
> there was (and probably still is) almost consensus.
Again, there was not consensus. The RFC was controversial, especially outside of internals, but even
on internals around half the people who responded *were not positive*.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/