Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106206 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 11326 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2019 00:13:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-wm1-f41.google.com) (209.85.128.41) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2019 00:13:30 -0000 Received: by mail-wm1-f41.google.com with SMTP id h19so5537839wme.0 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 14:33:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:thread-index :content-language; bh=NgSgIBFSgssOIeHD+q/IkhA7WFVr8Mm8ObO+ielGIpo=; b=YfKYXXAN1Mov0q/Og9vY0moKNKc3p59KRpgLMeYZ81yp/IOsdrm4pP1Kd7nwvsRxE+ YNANwelqGdzaEjcGSVBIjZUvxElx5AxEVS90O3Hr//so5rRSVyRGDu7Ab5jgAephVZNE JMDP45pjhhlSr08VX38uAyNOY8PEVeLXJr44bbWoTKLEfazioqzXGrhq52V5RugUiR06 9R+3ef1dfNR3LzlWQNKaQqVFYnOGZI/QafHN4x4QOD75pXpQQigkxUloDRpKybW19ZC+ 5O6sjkSoZc/oxKnxjn0TU3gb96CJZYePevjiT47od7tC3+jvcYipDfLasG/+9TqJebZl orpA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :thread-index:content-language; bh=NgSgIBFSgssOIeHD+q/IkhA7WFVr8Mm8ObO+ielGIpo=; b=BqmgAKRlYpY3/sEQNz3dQTH38B1W1+O87apBiV96YoZWPY80OeOGfmkbg4eXvh3QwK 2/OYql/+7GAtDmZJsT3ZAptWL7m5Zlp2KFXe8DRhImb5EuRGtxBlgraI8Ozr2BDdibR2 /5nLA6JDMB8WTaVxSPeJcm8J+AoIANPqwSE68L2G62xN9QsI2n0wWgv73GwkqdftRDFB sK70P6S/gTgU+6xpWz/U6suScGh3MGpAJnmcDO+iuWi/5n9k6sBfTxACveV7VggJkBmQ xMog2BMozzQISDET6Ak6jxq1554sKKb8DDi0FKvNE4goNa1ems+45BzMXOX2DKA7jhht HCDA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVaw0fTYRBJce/ccS+E4OFrKRk2MELWceOfsn3lcl3VBI1XRXcg R1dE+rx/tE/ne7rxOeCY9dgVmH5r X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzMlhpV01bEZLcPgVQc4Q6HYsXvfC1F8LgdnbyzJNR+KGt7rebjnTSN5gnJvoDKvTKpouJ+/w== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c104:: with SMTP id w4mr10681wmi.42.1562794408342; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 14:33:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eCenter710 ([37.142.6.27]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v204sm2950510wma.20.2019.07.10.14.33.26 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jul 2019 14:33:27 -0700 (PDT) To: "'PHP internals'" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 00:33:25 +0300 Message-ID: <2311901d53767$1c5aa780$550ff680$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_2311A_01D53780.41A91800" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-index: AdU3ZxtK/wiUV4bTQLCVvDLmpjI27w== Content-language: he Subject: hebrevc() and other 'contentious' 7.4 proposed deprecations From: vsuraski@gmail.com ------=_NextPart_000_2311A_01D53780.41A91800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Two separate topics on this message: First - I wanted to point out that my fierce defense of the hebrev() function does not in fact extend to hebrevc(). As much as I think the RFC was really wrong about hebrev(), and we got scarily close to deprecating a functionality that - while somewhat esoteric - can be extremely useful and cannot be easily replicated in any way - I have to say that I think the RFC is pretty much correct on hebrevc(). I don't think it's very plausible hebrevc() is still in use today - and even if we're missing something and it is - it can be implemented in a one liner with 100.00% compatibility. While I don't think it brings much value to deprecate it - perhaps sending the message that you shouldn't be using it for HTML bears some level of value. I voted in favor. Now, with that said - I would really encourage everyone who voted on this RFC (as well as ones who haven't) to take a look at what I would call the 'contentious votes' in there. In a nutshell, votes with a substantial amount of people voting against the deprecation. If you voted 'yes' for one of these - please consider, for a moment, whether your position on it is "It's evil, I really think we're better off without it" or whether it's more of a "I don't think it's very useful". If it's the former - by all means, keep your vote. But if it's the latter - please consider the possibility that the fact that a substantial number of people feel strongly enough about keeping it to vote against the deprecation (and let's admit it - against the odds), may mean it is, in fact, useful - even if you don't find it useful yourself. While we can argue whether consensus-based voting makes sense for votes in general, I think it's tenfold more important when dealing with deprecations. If there's a substantial minority that thinks a feature is still useful - we should keep it - unless there's a real tangible cost associated with keeping it. For most of the proposed deprecations - that cost is simply not there. For reference, this is what consensus looks like: https://www.dropbox.com/s/asfgt98rss3xyw2/consensus.PNG?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/iia7ua4xh6bihe3/consensus2.PNG?dl=0 And this is what it doesn't look like: https://www.dropbox.com/s/56jdl2v1lpxba49/no-consensus.PNG?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/hj8jozuun7a4w42/no-consensus2.PNG?dl=0 To connect with the first point - the hebrevc() vote certainly looks a lot more like the latter than the former, but I do believe it's mostly related to confusion with hebrev() and as the author of both - I feel comfortable supporting its removal :) Thanks for your consideration, Zeev ------=_NextPart_000_2311A_01D53780.41A91800--