I did not intent to write anything else in this thread, but since someone reverted the edits I made to fix the description of the P++ idea in the poll, I have to.
One of the many ways in which this poll was problematic is that it substantially misrepresents the idea - while claiming that this is in fact what is being discussed/proposed. I edited the description to reflect what the idea actually is - and given that it’s my idea, I’m in the best position to do that (some of these misconceptions were even explicitly handled in the FAQ). Other than fixing the errors in presenting it (and still doing so very surgically) - I corrected two factual errors (type safety in languages is roughly as modern as VCRs - i.e. not really, and this isn’t an RFC - but an informal vote). I also added a time qualifier at the end - “at this time”, which is the only non-factual edit I made, and that I don’t mind dropping anyway as this poll has no formal standing (and don’t worry, I have no intention to continue discussing it anytime soon regardless). You can see the edited version that was reverted here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/p-plus-plus?rev=1565816351 I purposely took the time to do it in a “track changes” kind of way, so that people can see both the original version and the corrected version. To be clear - I’m not asking for a revote or anything of the sort. I really want to put this poll behind us all (I’m sure we all do), but can’t live with this grossly misrepresented version of my own idea being somehow validated as authentic by being on a vote - as non binding and informal as this vote is. Thanks, Zeev
