On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Pavel Kouřil <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Dmitry Stogov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> this is more or less true. :(
>> The proposal is presented in an unfair way to include strict typing without
>> the ability to vote for weak types only.
>>
>> Despite of semantic arguments, the implementation is a bit immature and
>> introduces slowdown for any code without type hints.
>>
>> Thanks. Dmitry.
>>
>>
>
> This is something I mentioned several times - there should be two
> votes. One for weak types and one for adding the strict typing on the
> weak typing as a bonus. Not bundling it into one voting, it makes it
> feel "forced".
I am not saying I want one or the other (I have voted and now only
focus on solving possible tech issues we may find) but trying to be
fair with Andrea's RFC and amazing effort:
What you ask is basically part of the RFC already, your code can be
strict free if you wish to, or it will be by default. Only issue is
the massive misunderstanding behind the declare(strict) thing.
Cheers,
Pierre