> I feel like the current RFC text is very biased in favor of adding the alias. I believe it would be prudent to also list possible caveats and arguments against so that voters are able to make an educated decision.
Fair point. I added that. > The “Backwards Incompatible Changes” section should also mention that > `split()` would no longer be available to userland. I didn't realize not having the function available anymore could be a breaking change. Good point. Added. > The template specifically contains an RFC impact section that is missing from > your RFC: I added that and the RFC Impact sections. I added "None" to the existing extensions and SAPIs. Let me know if that should be like that or if I should just omit those sections. Let me know if that's enough or if I'm still missing something. Thank you for the thorough feedback.
