Hi voters, Following people are vote against this RFC for now.
bwoebi (bwoebi) danack (danack) hywan (hywan) leigh (leigh) levim (levim) nikic (nikic) ocramius (ocramius) peehaa (peehaa) ryat (ryat) I suppose bwoebi and levim vote against due to error and exception usage. Thank you for feedback, Levi and Bob. How many of you vote "no" because of error and exception issue? IMHO. Exception in session module is out of scope of RFC, mixing error and exception in a module is confusing and inconsistent. Session module is not language engine, so I'm not 100% sure if we should use TypeError exception for normal module's invalid return type. However, I don't mind much to use exception if many of us insist. (BTW, "interface" parameter issue is out of scope this RFC also. It should be addressed by OO API cleanup RFC consistently. I'm trying to resolve issues one by one.) I wonder how many of you understand this RFC is really a "register_globals" legacy cleanup? Do you really think we should keep "register_globals" legacy because of irrelevant issue? Thank you for feedback! Unless there are feedbacks, nobody cannot figure out what's the reason behind for "no" votes. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
