Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101848 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 61496 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2018 19:09:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Feb 2018 19:09:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.83.51 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.83.51 mail-pg0-f51.google.com Received: from [74.125.83.51] ([74.125.83.51:45075] helo=mail-pg0-f51.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 27/E4-26725-266E18A5 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:09:23 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id e11so2174899pgq.12 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:09:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eO2MVYks2ifAnuJI9q0fYvQYJWUjV4G5tOLDX7gZGuM=; b=fspHFc6++tDwGLC8MR2oNkTNvpI7FlpgX/zA22uqPzmjCzWJPjWAJBLpxXopvwMZI0 ucLivmKpV8wjQUbJ+usr2XHQ3SY/lQw6VsMB/11vBANf2K5h0+X0L77/AQQd1OVa3/ss FfKuICsgTuQSlXyMSbzvpPZpkyrbVBNxh5BEH7oe96i/p8D7/JhIsaNmLRP1sOuSHRfN xC0iEkN6sWfe7ETGHhL1cCdFvI45p+8Cs74Ax0+YJDZJcwkXnysR3QLKgEsYzDcHDrYc DUgaFEtdStpu3uJ5U4mqow/mDavb0p/RjP3zZKotRe6+bG8k3FNvPy9lTf+9nTOL8p9c ub0Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eO2MVYks2ifAnuJI9q0fYvQYJWUjV4G5tOLDX7gZGuM=; b=sjRxHv0eXQonNvwJIw+uDIw5c5G1l4++tv5TTRIGpCn4umiBKDuRuOPuQY2zvoknmp gmS7+txd1EOsOy5xAB70snVus3ALT5fmextUSEiRZT4p0iI5W+Ta+BJ0sVdzywgm9nAh VZCO3P+R53l+vtSo1FxezzQV5X23j8Vds/1ZdePOKjPFTGy1x9G8ix4/bJiPJdDXJ6RQ 678bww/EZnwIUNrLPAS2IRvyEfd3LGef3U1XxSvNlhNHCWASEEedKrt1sNr0UdlVrTIH dq4Y9JBgaCXNpOwzw4s6JWDoUQ91HnqAm9wgjyVukgyMytPvk/JAr5+oy+JLaraO3oxn 1zAQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPDpa9eM04rUodpY92v3RG8C6635uOxc7mWu2d4fYrACHgfEVF5G HrLBKJWQzk22/RResKSdiUDOtFI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224NlheG7aSQTJ2IVosOVFWeCskTJobRB/s8foZfscLbcqcloxHdWxA97iVjHINMZ4FifR85bQ== X-Received: by 10.98.249.4 with SMTP id o4mr12154440pfh.14.1518462558483; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:09:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from Stas-Pro-2016.local ([2601:646:8a00:a6b0:900:bce8:dce5:70ac]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q10sm31907389pfl.106.2018.02.12.11.09.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:09:17 -0800 (PST) To: Wes Cc: PHP Internals References: Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:09:16 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:58.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/58.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Deprecate the backtick operator From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev) Hi! On 2/12/18 10:26 AM, Wes wrote: > There is not much to say. You either agree with it or you don't. And I That's not how consensus discussion process in RFCs should work. It's not just throwing your opinion over the fence, because the response would be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c . And don't get me wrong, having an opinion, including one different from any other people in the community, is completely fine. But: if you want to introduce a major change into a 20-year-old stable project, it can't be just somebody's opinion. It should be much more than that. And to make it much more than that there should be good argument why we need to do this change and why doing this change is so much better than not doing it that we have to spend time on it, bearing the migration costs of it, dealing with updating code and documentation, etc. It may be obvious to you, but explaining it to everyone else - sometimes repeatedly, and dealing with objections properly - not just saying "ok, that's my opinion, you either agree or don't" - is part of the work on the RFC that needs to be done. If the idea is not ready for this work, it's fine to have pre-RFC discussion - on the list or on any other venue - to shape it out, gather the ideas and support, figure out major possible objections and ways to address them, etc. Or just put the idea on the list and see if anybody else agrees, that sometimes happens too. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com