> No, we did not Yes, we did, which you could have found out, if you were really bothered:
https://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=138213285708117&w=2 Cheers Joe On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org> > wrote: > >> 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. > > > > It's fine for an RFC to be focused on one thing. This is another subject. > > > >> 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'm saying that this isn't a subject for this RFC, deciding if we're > going > > to have multiple exception trees is simply not in scope. > > Why I use the word "prerequisite" and not "part of 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. > > > > I'm sorry that you don't remember the discussion, but it did happen, the > > RFC has been in (more or less) it's current form for more than a year. > > > > The current form *is the result of discussion*. > > > > Please stop saying it hasn't been discussed, it has, a lot. > > Some stuff covered by this RFC have part of a bigger discussions about > many different things. > > Did we have a [RFC][Discuss] thread to actually discuss this exact > RFC? No, we did not. And it is cruelly needed. > > Cheers, > -- > Pierre > > @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org >
