nothing was changed in RFC itself, just additional details were clarified during discussion. I didn't thought about ArrayAccess when found this inconsistency.
Anyway, I won't object if someone will add missing info about ArrayAccess support inconsistency and restart the voting. Thanks. Dmitry. On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > On 26 Sep 2014, at 14:25, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: > >> When I started this RFC I didn't thought about objects. > >> Actually, they are handled with the same inconsistency problem. > >> > >> Nikita, feel free to add this note to RFC. > >> May be it'll change mind of some voters :) > >> > >> also add a link to your patch. > > > > Please do not :) Enough mess with RFC changed while being voting on. > > Yeah, that’s a pretty big change. I wouldn’t vote how I did if it meant > affecting ArrayAccess. Please restart the vote. > -- > Andrea Faulds > http://ajf.me/ > > > > >
