On 25 January 2015 at 08:07, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am a bit disappointed by the result, as I think it would be a good > change, but I am much more disappointed by the fact that that 20 people > voted against it and not even half of them - I would say maybe 1/5 of > them - chose to participate in discussion even minimally and explain > what is wrong with it in their opinion. I understand when everybody > agrees there's no need of the flood of +1s, vote is enough, but > disagreement by its nature is more diverse. I think not bothering to > discuss and then just voting "no" with no explanation is not how the > healthy RFC process should be working. >
My points were already covered I believe. In hindsight I should have added a "me too". I think that "might refactor one day" is a pretty flimsy excuse for a feature, and if you're going to refactor, that constructor will probably need some parameters passing anyway, so you still have to do the work. I'm in the camp that thinks if you call a method that doesn't exist, you've done something wrong (I particularly hate __call too). Leigh. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
