> De : christopher jones [mailto:christopher.jo...@oracle.com] > >> To summarize, I started with a rather simple feature request and was >> then pushed by external wishes. > > See #13 at > https://blogs.oracle.com/opal/entry/the_mysterious_php_rfc_process > "Take advice on board but make sure your feature doesn't end up being > designed by a committee."
I appreciate, really. I see that I was not clear enough when I said that I was 'pushed by external wishes'. I must reassure you as I am generally well-known to be quite 'unpushable' when the advices I receive don't fit my objectives. The whole challenge, here, as anybody (should) know, is to avoid denaturing your vision, while keeping an open mind and accepting advices and constructive critics. When people are constructive and know what they are talking about, negotiating a proper mix is generally easy. When it is not the case, it is harder... but we are just weak humans and, sometimes, battles of egos are also part of the game... These last 25 years (yes, I am probably MUCH older than everyone else here but that's not a reason to throw stones at me :), I have continuously opposed weak committee decisions and I am quite experienced (although tired) on this kind of process. This is also the reason why I didn't have only friends on the PHP internals ML, but that's all over now... To illustrate this, I just modified the RFC to indicate that the trend was to limit search recursion to 1 level, as I also think that, even if attractive from a theoretical point of view, nested search would be too confusing for a marginal benefit. On the other side, I still insist on arbitrarily-nested subject because I think it is worth the (all-relative) added complexity. I am waiting for your comments on the RFC. PS: The only persistent fault I recognize is writing too long messages :) Regards François -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
