Re: [PHP-DEV] How to indicate support for unimplemented part of an RFC

2016-06-15 Thread Rowan Collins
On 14/06/2016 20:11, Leigh wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 at 22:30 Matthew Browne wrote: Hi, What is the proper way to express support for an item that's not an official part of an RFC but is listed as an idea for future consideration? Specifically I wanted to give my "+1" for covariant return typ

Re: [PHP-DEV] How to indicate support for unimplemented part of an RFC

2016-06-14 Thread Leigh
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 at 22:30 Matthew Browne wrote: > Hi, > What is the proper way to express support for an item that's not an > official part of an RFC but is listed as an idea for future > consideration? Specifically I wanted to give my "+1" for covariant > return types which are mentioned in p

[PHP-DEV] How to indicate support for unimplemented part of an RFC

2016-06-13 Thread Matthew Browne
Hi, What is the proper way to express support for an item that's not an official part of an RFC but is listed as an idea for future consideration? Specifically I wanted to give my "+1" for covariant return types which are mentioned in passing in this RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/return_types.