Benas, On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 9:29 AM Benas IML <benas.molis....@gmail.com> wrote:
> [copy of the email that I have accidentally sent to Mark individually] > > Hey, > > As much as I appreciate your enthusiasm and ideas, adding your name on > my original RFC and editing its contents without my approval is not > acceptable. Especially considering that contents of the RFCs are a > direct representation of my stance and views on a particular feature. > As such, I would not like to have my name put on proposals that I have > never discussed nor proposed myself. In this case, I explicitly have > given Máté permission to continue working on this RFC and in taking it > under his wing. > My apologies. Good luck on the RFC. > > That being said, feel free to open a new RFC yourself and copy the > contents of your previous proposal from the wiki's history tab. > I will be doing that. I'll give the typed constants RFC time to settle first. > > Best regards, > Benas > > P.S.: Next time, try also contacting me over Room 11 or GitHub, given > that I rarely check this email. > > Thanks for the updated contact information. > On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 02:22, Mark Niebergall <mbnieberg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Máté, Benas, Internals, > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 7:34 AM Máté Kocsis <kocsismat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Alexandru, Mark, > > > > > > > > > > 1. Why is object type not supported? I can't see a real reason and > also > > > > there is no explanation why. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for this, mentioning object as unsupported was an artifact from > the > > > original version of the RFC which > > > was created back then when constants couldn't be objects. After your > > > comments, I removed the object type > > > from the list. Thank you for catching this issue! > > > > > > > > > > 2. In the examples for illegal values, it would be good to explain > why > > > > they are not legal. > > > > I don't understand why "public const ?Foo M = null;" wouldn't be > legal. > > > > I think "?Foo" should work the same as "Foo|null" that would be > legal. > > > > > > > > It was there due to the same reason as above. I removed this example > now. > > > > > > I had updated the RFC page, but it looks like the changes were > reverted in > > > > December 2022. The updated version I was working on was: > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/typed_class_constants?rev=1648644637 > > > > > > > > > Yeah, the original author of the RFC was surprised to find your > changes in > > > his RFC ( > https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/5815#issuecomment-1356049048 > > > ), > > > so he restored his original version. > > > Next time, please either consult with the author of an RFC if you > intend to > > > modify the wording, or you can simply create a brand new RFC - even if > it's > > > very similar to the original one (just don't > > > forget to add proper references). > > > > > > > See https://externals.io/message/117406#117460 about contact attempts > that > > were made (with no response), and other discussions about why I used the > > existing RFC instead of creating a new one. Next time I will just start a > > new RFC if an author is non-responsive. This is also a bigger policy > > question for other seemingly-abandoned RFCs. If it is agreed that a new > RFC > > should be created in this scenario, I will update > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto since that scenario is not specifically > > covered. > > > > That being said, the RFC was discussed publicly actively last year, and > the > > RFC was revised based on the public input. With the reverting, valuable > > community input was dismissed. An effort should be made to address > > applicable previous community input instead of just reverting it out. > > > > I will work on a new RFC to follow this implementation to introduce > > inheritance. > > > > > > > > > > The updated RFC looks good, thanks for working on it. You may want to > > > > review the revised version I had worked on for implementation ideas, > and > > > > review the previous conversations. > > > > > > > > > > I also saw your proposal, but to be honest, I'm not that fond of the > idea. > > > This doesn't mean though that you shouldn't create a new RFC or an > > > implementation, as others may find it useful. If you kick off > > > the project, I'll surely try to review your work. > > > > > > > That is fine to break it apart as a future RFC. I have seen too many real > > world use cases where inheritance with typed constants would solve > > problems. See https://externals.io/message/117406#117408 for an > > explanation. Adding typed constants independently adds value, so it > should > > progress. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Máté Kocsis > > > > > > > Overall, I'm happy to see that this is progressing again, thanks for > > working on it. > > > > - Mark Niebergall >
