Levi, I did read this email in full before responding in parts. To that I’ll start by saying I’m sorry for origionally beinging this back into the internals thread and not in a DM. I did not realize it was a DM on oversight, seriously my bad. I still think we can all learn from this and your opionions here!
> On Jul 9, 2024, at 10:53 AM, Levi Morrison <levi.morri...@datadoghq.com> > wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 10:18 AM Richard Miles <richard@miles.systems > <mailto:richard@miles.systems>> wrote: >> >> Hi Levi, >> >> First, were you able to discuss this with authors of other generic >> proposals or implementations? Derick Rethans and Arnaud Le Blanc both >> have experience there. >> >> >> This proposal has nothing to do with generics. >> Derick Rethans responded in this thread, and I've specifically addressed his >> current (generic?) branch. >> It is a community misconception that typed arrays have anything to do with >> Generics and also >> has been discussed in this thread in detail. >> Is gatekeeping you asking me to repeat what was discussed back to you >> specifically so you can grant me privileges? I digress and I'll concede. > > Please calm down. I am not gatekeeping, as I don't even have the > know-how to grant you the wiki karma. I’ve asked for karma three separate times in this feed alone and it’s pretty unclear who has that ability, my apologies for assuming. Since you responded to that message specifically, I figured you were a karma granter. >> Second, do you have any work towards an implementation? Technically, >> an implementation is not required for RFCs. However, for this feature, >> >> >> I did start on the implementation and have linked the branch above, but >> stopped after >> Rob Landers’ suggestion: >> >> In my honest opinion, before we can even have this type of conversation, we >> need to have an RFC about the syntax (there may already be one, I haven’t >> checked — and internet is spotty where I currently am). The pattern matching >> RFC was proposed as though it would be written one way, people have thrown >> out ideas of different syntax, but I don’t think there is an “official” >> syntax. A good starting point may be to simply propose an RFC about syntax >> so future RFCs can be consistent. >> >> — Rob >> >> >> >> Also, directly from the how-to page on the mailing list >> "https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto"; >> >> "Email internals@lists.php.net to measure reaction to your intended proposal. >> State who would implement the feature, or whether the proposal is only a >> “concept”. >> Proceed with an RFC if feedback is not negative or if a detailed RFC will >> clarify the proposal. “ >> >> So, unless I'm mistaken, I think we’re going about this correctly.? I’m not >> sure whoes 'voice to follow’ since >> Rob and Levi have differing opinions on paths forward. I personally would >> like the syntactic approval before >> I implement the full code. The complete implementation details would need >> its own discussion. > > Syntax is part of the implementation, but it's not the hard part from > a technical perspective. The hard part is actually implementing the > semantics and behavior, and plumbing it through all the parts of the > engine. It does not matter what the "skin" of the thing looks like, if > the mechanics of the things simply don't work. > > Also, I don't mean to say you need a complete implementation, either. > More of a "proof of concept" which means that core issues have been > identified, and are either fixed or outlined so other people are aware > of them. I see what you're saying, but getting from my original idea to where we are now was a community effort. Asking the community for more input still doesn’t seem like a bad idea and has been ideal thus far; and it’s what Rob suggested. If you can’t grant me karma and Rob can’t grant me karma, it’s still unclear who I should be asking. Casper Langemeijer at least has a @php.net email and believed we should have typed arrays saying, “if anything we would get better talks about generics”. Now I’d love to hear everyones thoughts and have a clear discussion on what it is im trying to solve, and how that might best look. I personally like letting ideas simmer a bit so I feel like I’ve given everyone plenty of time to come up with better syntactic approaches. Even in the work I had done it is very clear that syntax is a critical starting point that influences, if not dictates, expected behavior. >> I can guarantee any RFC without an implementation is dead-on-arrival. >> >> >> You're not the first person to have a guarantee in this thread… :) > > No, but I authored and co-authored many RFCs over many years. I was > trying to be helpful. I'll state that I don't think your RFC has any > chance of success. The syntax, the semantics, the discussion so far, > especially that typed arrays have nothing to do with generics... I > think its chance of success is quite low. I messaged you to try and be > helpful despite my own opinions on such things, and tried to point you > to things that I thought would be helpful if you wish to pursue this: > I’d really like to understand what makes you say this regarding generics? I didn’t start the conversation with the subject Generics, it’s always been about Typed Arrays. I appreciate you trying to be helpful and I’m sorry this came back so poorly. I am willing to take this through to implementation, but again am just looking for the correct voice to follow. Maybe someone to say, 'I’ll grant you karma if…’. They may agree with you. > 1. A proper discussion with authors of other proposals, including > ones related to generics, is prudent. Even if you believe they aren't > related, I'm sure they've learned things about the engine that would > be helpful to you in your implementation. I still would like to understand how generics relate in your perspective that differs from the points I’ve made in this thread. > 2. A proposal for a significant feature without the bones of an > implementation simply will not pass. Since the RFC process was > created, I don't think it's ever happened. There have been cases where > the implementation changed from RFC to what landed (Dmitry completely > reimplemented from scratch one of my RFCs that passed, I think it was > return types), but a basic implementation is needed to fully > understand the problems and challenges of the implementation. This just differs from other advice already given and the online how-to page, but seriously I'll just get started if thats what needs to happen. You have this opinion with past experience granted, but your not really giving practical feedback on why this implementation is poor. > Lastly, I'll note that I responded to you off-list. I don't know why > you brought a private conversation back to the list without discussing > it with me. There wasn't anything rude or inappropriate, and the rest > of the list certainly could have gone without this conversation. We > should respect the time of everyone participating on the list. This is entirely on me! I didn’t realize It was a DM and should not have been brought back onto the list. I’m sorry! Best, Richard Miles
