On Fri, Aug 23, 2024, at 14:56, Christian Schneider wrote: > Am 23.08.2024 um 12:27 schrieb Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes>: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024, at 12:14, Christian Schneider wrote: > >> Am 23.08.2024 um 11:34 schrieb Nick Lockheart <li...@ageofdream.com>: > >> > I think we are all trying to achieve the same thing here. > >> > >> I'm not sure who "we" and what "same thing" here exactly is. > > > > Nick was replying to me :p, judging by the quoted paragraph. > > The "all" in his sentence suggested to me that he means more than him and you. > But then again I might have misinterpreted this. > > > As far as function overloading goes, I recommend checking out a draft RFC > > I've been working on a very, very long time: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/records. In some off-list discussions, it was > > clear that if I wanted this syntax, I would need to pursue function > > autoloading. > > Definitely an interesting read, thanks a lot for the work you put into it! > > > Further, function autoloading is a clearly missing feature that would be > > useful in many situations. > > The "clearly missing" and "many" part is where I disagree. But I was mainly > considering current PHP, not future PHP syntax like the Records stuff, agreed. > > > If function autoloading doesn't work out, I will need to take a different > > approach to that syntax (which is fine, but not something I want because I > > chose the syntax for a very good reason). > > I know you do not want to discuss this here as it is off-topic but it kind of > feels the only advantage is to get rid of "new" in the usage of Records. But > I'll leave it at that as to per your request, we can revisit that once the > RFC hits the discussion stage. > > > That being said, I'm not ready to discuss records here, so this is the > > first and last time I'll mention it on the thread. There is a Reddit post > > in r/php and a GitHub repo if you are interested in discussing records. > > There are very many things to work out still, and it is very much > > work-in-progress. > > Also a bit off-topic but I still have to mention it, maybe worth another > thread: > I understand where you are coming from but at the same time it feels a bit > worrying to me to use another medium (reddit) for a discussion about future > language features when we have this mailing list.
Don't be worried about it too much. Many RFCs start somewhere else first before they end up here. First as an idea, then a draft, then they ask friends/coworkers to read them over, etc. By the time it ends up on the list, a lot of work has been done (in some cases). Sometimes, they are simple-ish RFCs that need little work and are pretty straightforward, but for more complex ones, there are usually several cycles before it will end up on the mailing list. Further, it has come to my attention that an implementation is basically an unwritten requirement, so spending time on that is also a delay there. At least, that has been my experience so far with that one. > > I hope this won't mean that questions/suggestions/concerns on this mailing > list won't be discredited because of discussions which happened elsewhere. > I'm sorry if I sound a bit paranoid here but I've been in this situation > before in other (not software related) aspects of my life before where I was > told that something was already decided and people were not willing to go > back on certain issues because of that. The way I look at it, nothing is set in stone until everyone has seen it and had a chance to respond. Yes, there are good reasons that things are the way they are in that RFC, and during discussion, I expect those reasons will come up. I have no idea if those reasons stand up under scrutiny, and I won't find out until then. These are all known unknowns. There are some people on the list who believe once it is on the list, it is unchangeable unless you are a voter and act accordingly, such as ignoring non-voter concerns. I, personally, feel that shouldn't be how things work. It is "our language" (voter or not) and not "Rob's language." I guess we will see how that plays out in the coming months. > > Regards, > - Chris > — Rob
