On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Xinchen Hui <larue...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hey: >> > >> > I really don't like arguing in english, so this will be my last >> > reply in this thread. >> > >> >> sorry to bother you, and my "backlash" wasn't really targeted you >> personally. >> >> >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/uniform_variable_syntax >> > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/size_t_and_int64_next >> > >> > aren't they discussed and voted? what do you mean by we can't even >> > start in previous comment? >> >> yes, and both of those were put on hold by the authors until the phpng >> situation is resolved, and to me it feels wrong to block something which >> is >> done and accepted with something which is not-yet finished(albeit it seems >> to be reaching a stable state) and didn't have a consensus behind it. >> > > To make sure that this isn't misconstrued as an argument against merging > phpng: My work isn't blocked by phpng (it's actually based on it), it's > blocked by lack of an official decision regarding phpng. I have another > large patch (AST) based on phpng and Andrea is working on a bigint > implementation, also based on phpng. Before these things can move forward > we need the decision that PHP 6/7 is going to be based on phpng. > sorry if I wasn't clear enough, this is exactly what I meant by "but we can't even start because *there is no stable base to target the other php-next* features.". I should have quoted your mail where you mention that you will put on hold until the master-phpng situation is resolved. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
