On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <ras...@lerdorf.com> wrote: > On 07/13/2011 11:17 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <syst...@php.net> wrote: >>> On 07/13/2011 10:30 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: >>>> I disagree and this exact issue shows that the voting and controlling >>>> is actually working well, very well. As it is covered by the two >>>> recently adopted RFCs. >>> >>> I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that it is working well. >>> This particular change is clearly not feasible for 5.4, yet the votes >>> are 37-19 for doing it right now. >> >> Maybe read my reply in this exact thread? >> >> I said that due the BC problem, discovered or discussed later, forces >> us to reject this RFC. > > What do you mean discovered or discussed later? Anybody who bothered to > read the RFC should have seen the BC problem. It's not like it was > hiding in small letters somewhere.
We have some issues here. One is that I can't find the RFC for this proposal. Many of these votes are made out of the 5.4 todos instead of having clear and obvious (as you wish) RFCs. That was a mistake. But that's a new thing, we are learning. However, while making these primitives keywords sounded like a good and easy step, not being able to use them inside a namespace is a not acceptable BC break. It was also not obvious that NS won't be supported. > And most of the other votes are unanimous which make them rather > pointless as well. Are you saying that widely approved thing are pointless or we could have foreseen the results for each of them? Better to have a vote and got a massive support than nothing and sit in the middle of nowhere forever. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
