> Am 28.03.2017 um 06:58 schrieb Marco Pivetta <ocram...@gmail.com>: > > Voted "no" because of this paragraph: > >> This RFC proposes to allow this, even if it has very few uses, and > because there is no reason to disallow a compatible redefinition. > > I couldn't see a use-case. > > In addition to that, this breaks the assumption that the topmost abstract > signature is the authoritative one. That is a subtle BC break, but still a > BC break. Yes, I know I'm annoying, sorry 😥
Hey, May you please explain where that's a BC break? If there was a BC break, the BC break was in PHP 7, where that guarantee was broken, as the RFC states in its introduction. Now the only guarantee is that the all abstract function signatures are the same ones. Which is not an useful guarantee by any means. The only thing this RFC changes is making abstract and normal classes consistent, which is a good thing. Less special cases. Bob
