On 22/05/2020 18:30, Mark Randall wrote:
Should this vote fail, \PHP effectively changes from a reserved namespace, to a dead namespace.


I don't see how you get from the text of this RFC to that conclusion.

There are a number of reasons why people who vote against this RFC might vote for an alternative, such as:

* They would prefer *more* classes to be in \PHP
* They would prefer fewer classes, but not none
* They would prefer a similar number of classes, but a different definition
* They would prefer a guideline with "should" or "may" rather than "must"
* They like the definition, but would prefer a plan to rename existing classes that meet it, for consistency (I don't have a vote, but I might well vote No on this basis) * They would prefer a concrete proposal on how to structure the namespace, which this RFC explicitly is not * They might even prefer your RFC, which is still marked "Under Discussion": https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_namespace_policy


It is possible that "officially declare that we won't use the \PHP namespace" would get a majority, but that's not what this vote asks.


Regards,

--
Rowan Tommins (né Collins)
[IMSoP]

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to