On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 5:08 PM Mark Randall <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16/08/2019 11:18, Christoph M. Becker wrote: > > It is not necessarily required to have an implementation for an RFC > > available, see item (6) in <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto>. > > I have enormous respect for Derick, but I can't help but feel this "RFC" > was bodged from the start. > > There's certainly a place for straw polls, the ability to receive quick > feedback on opinions and sentiment can be a positive thing in a lot of > circumstances. This however, seemed more like an invitation for > internals developers to express that they wouldn't entertain spending > any time on the proposal, in effect forcefully slamming the door shut on > it before a proper discussion had been had. > > The end result did seem to be like watching Zeev be thrown to the lions > in the colosseum. While entertaining for a short time, I believe it left > something of a sour taste in the mouth, and it certainly did not present > internals well to the outside world. The hasty edits to the Wiki then > made it worse, and so on. >
On this last paragraph written below, I'm seriously with you on this. I believe for anything remotely positive to come out of this whole > affair. Things need to quickly and visibly pivot to a meaningful > discussion about the long term game plan for PHP, and build a consensus > on things such as strict typing(Optional through declare directive) , > overloading in the core functions, and > perhaps most divisively, if "cleaning up the language" is in itself a > viable justification for backwards compatibility breaks, and if so, what > weight(the biggest weight ever) it should carry. > Just in case a poll is needed, I added my +1 on the whole section you wrote last. >
