Hi!
On 11/16/16 3:06 PM, Adam Baratz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> No, you're not misreading the subject line. I began working on the docs for
> the previously accepted proposal and became uncomfortable with the
> approach. I think it will be better to integrate this info into
> PDOStatement::debugDumpParams(
>
> Once the proposal had been accepted, and merged, it's not really
> legitimate to unilaterally decide that it's a bad implementation and revert
> it yourself.
>
That's fair. I will revert the revert and open a new RFC to supersede the
previous one. Thanks again for your patience.
Adam
Morning Adam,
Once the proposal had been accepted, and merged, it's not really legitimate
to unilaterally decide that it's a bad implementation and revert it
yourself.
In addition, what we are looking at is a new RFC, that uses some of the
same words as the old one, but a different approach and a
