On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 5:08 PM Mark Randall <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 16/08/2019 11:18, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> > It is not necessarily required to have an implementation for an RFC
> > available, see item (6) in <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto>.
> I have enormous respect for Derick, but I can't help but feel this "RFC"
> was bodged from the start.
> There's certainly a place for straw polls, the ability to receive quick
> feedback on opinions and sentiment can be a positive thing in a lot of
> circumstances. This however, seemed more like an invitation for
> internals developers to express that they wouldn't entertain spending
> any time on the proposal, in effect forcefully slamming the door shut on
> it before a proper discussion had been had.
> The end result did seem to be like watching Zeev be thrown to the lions
> in the colosseum. While entertaining for a short time, I believe it left
> something of a sour taste in the mouth, and it certainly did not present
> internals well to the outside world. The hasty edits to the Wiki then
> made it worse, and so on.

On this last paragraph written below, I'm seriously with you on this.

I believe for anything remotely positive to come out of this whole
> affair.

Things need to quickly and visibly pivot to a meaningful
> discussion about the long term game plan for PHP, and build a consensus
> on things such as strict typing(Optional through declare directive) ,
> overloading in the core functions, and
> perhaps most divisively, if "cleaning up the language" is in itself a
> viable justification for backwards compatibility breaks, and if so, what
> weight(the biggest weight ever) it should carry.

Just in case a poll is needed, I added my +1 on the whole section you wrote


Reply via email to