> On 6 Sep 2019, at 11:22, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> Hi Côme,
>
>> This example is really confusing me more than anything else.
>
>
> Thank you very much for your feedback. You illustrated perfectly why I
> should not have produced that proposal in haste.
>
> Your confusion was due to my
Before responding to your points let me reiterate that I made the proposal as
much to generate discussion on ideas that I was not seeing discussed as to see
*my* proposal get selected and implemented. So I like to think I won't be
defensive about any criticism, and will be happy if the only
> On 6 Sep 2019, at 14:37, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Thank you for taking the time to comment.
>
>> It seems like you’re trying to allow for type conversions in a predictable
>> manner,
>
> Correct.
>
>> but in a very different way than php already does that with built in
>
> As a code collaboration platform, GitHub is pretty good, but it's not built
> as a discussion forum, and there are plenty of limitations to using it as
> one.
Could we work on agreeing on a set of requirements for such a discussion
"forum" to replace mailing lists? That would make it easier
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 14:14, Benjamin Morel
wrote:
> As a code collaboration platform, GitHub is pretty good, but it's not built
>> as a discussion forum, and there are plenty of limitations to using it as
>> one.
>
>
> Could we work on agreeing on a set of requirements for such a discussion
>
>
> That's pretty much the opposite of your previous question. For one thing,
> it's unanswerable without knowing the scope - e.g. would it just be for
> RFCs, or all discussions?
I'm thinking about a generic "forum" for all discussions that happen on the
mailing lists right now, something that
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 12:31, Peter Kokot wrote:
>
> Plastic analogy - adding "127.0.0.1 github.com" to your /etc/hosts
> file shows that developer cannot bring most of the today's (PHP)
> projects to any working state without using it. That's what is meant
> by inevitable because everything open
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 5:51 PM Joe Watkins wrote:
> > Because the PHP project should avoid depending on a privately owned
> centralized service for its technical discussions
>
> This is obviously your opinion, but you haven't actually told us why this
> is the case, and it's not at all obvious.
>
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 22:45, Peter Kokot wrote:
> GitHub usage is inevitable.
Did you use the wrong word here, or are you saying that, of all the
hundreds of different platforms we could investigate, there is no chance
that we would end up using something other than github?
> The interface
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 11:11, Rowan Tommins wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 22:45, Peter Kokot wrote:
>
> > GitHub usage is inevitable.
>
>
>
> Did you use the wrong word here, or are you saying that, of all the
> hundreds of different platforms we could investigate, there is no chance
> that we
Here are my own thoughts on how the pull request discussion for union types
went...
I think the main takeaway for me is that inline comments (on specific lines
in the RFC) were really invaluable. Each comment thread discussed a
specific issue and most of them have resulted in a direct improvement
11 matches
Mail list logo
