On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org> wrote: >> However I think it is pre > mature to vote on as there was (sorry) not explicit discussions about > it. > > I haven't heard that from anyone else, the RFC is plenty old. > >> A couple of things are unclear. See the numerous questions in this thread. >> I also do not like other things. > > These don't seem like valid reasons to hold off progress. > >> zend.assertions: > > Having a more general debug setting might be a good idea, but is outside of > the scope of this RFC.
So it is fine to have one setting doing the exact same thing? Sorry, I disagree. We know we need that in other areas. Like other recent RFCs, we have solved them bottom-up. This one is no different. >> assert.exceptions: > > Delay isn't necessary, exceptions are not used by default, and there is > plenty of time for Engine Exceptions to make necessary changes. So basically what you say is that this RFC, relying on things we should clarify and define clearly so it will be consistent across the engine and language, are not relevant to this RFC? I totally disagree and hence my point that this RFC needs more (public) discussions and things that are prerequisites for this RFC should be designed, discussed and implemented before this RFC. I will certainly be the only one voting no at this stage, or maybe not even voting because I simply feel like you discussed that already no matter where and came to this RFC and say take it or leave it. I am not a fan of this approach or we can rename "Request For Comments" to "Request to Accept" as any kind of comments or feedback is simply not taken into accounts. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
