Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106359
To: Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAF+90c_Ctjja=8fR-uBWL1wDxZge771yMujMhaR_R2seKXciYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c8JhV6-aQrsvW8u_xGB-wHmyObEU1Chd64J+x3tkKogQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0143be10-1dff-58dc-818b-23e76345406f@gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuRQRemMz9KBVeB3k=4jnbKrofRN+Wo_2jRr=n0rt4+=SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ba841348-7c6e-a9fe-8324-02bb9a96533b@gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuTp-TMmLJ-kor+YdMk6ZqPGFMrXqB_-GsZiEJxJoFc72Q@mail.gmail.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=smalyshev@gmail.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 mQMuBE9mqaARCACFSqcGmNunkjQQu3X+yXnTmFeEkvM4JXZTOBdR8aEevNGmmFEfyvjaDjWi
 9hcwp4E/lYtC+P7VsVjM1OSX9eq0jC/lGL0ZyRXek+mNy0n5H1NSuTpf9Y18LMqhc4G+RU+L
 cNiZ9K0DJuOOvNLPxW7OHZguxb3wdKPXNVa2jyRfJAKm2uaJJMT1mTmFT9a0Q8SKr+mUrrJk
 uG0H2o6SzrKt8Wwoint1eh67zVsJaJtQFchnEZnlawIcqP2yC4nLGR3MkubowxoEBYCZet18
 aHVVRbvpG2Qtob8Lu5xrsGbmXymTkHTdpvkfcJFADa8MzOL90zOxXwbGfbIZOlh5En8jAQCX
 lfnx2eQL3BSW/6XANa51dbWiEp1d1BAkpGKtZvlk0Qf+M9WAi+9aXMe3xP5krxtgnRNUf2WN
 6Zdy2MxL1RRJCFbytLhl0ronC49BsGYVGshdEH8xhBbiIOJKuVZ/DTl9bEm7P9c7CC7iJyVC
 khUAhouH6xzZQNLR+RU+QebYzXypVfl99Qk7EdMmr/WAZCHLuvanyqepC5EBsa3VnAfQemSN
 oBeGBKWWLiOsPjvS72+y1z4RUMAfXHn4l/sFMt8zt7/74AmJPwZquV41p4mPO12V4+xPyc6R
 sB84sfsk2QVivU8w8AkvGQeYjXoz7Iwao95+fWteVzZ36KRQvUckP8pGjHlDXnHxJ0HI1I/k
 OBZSjwRwUf0dd73y6erPhbLk+gf+NdI3H9KGJBzG5/rVyWKwUeQ9d5ud4jTJRkQGvAP5pg76
 vEa9dogbpe4W5Z+0BfbiJSnQmQWSHiZddj/t33ptbup44Ck6ZTgdlmFYMLF1hR47PIZTDKER
 EuKYGci/vq8snZvEJP9YCw/TtiHcMdrMKcY/+Lp8lQO0GHLPB9glVhnC0db6l1Xpg1CMI8/R
 ozBMcij30EgATggC/y2zbiqAFoS9FN9nXPbe4phStqABEyeZ+nXudt7PUYTjVgcrqo8bHZCi
 sBobWC7OnKyUzxVxzUeuPkIfmZuzkLaMw2McQdvwwsNvQ0DzaLP30c1Xsm/7EIYJcOWpzlVJ
 5QrdmE0/BbQyU3RhbmlzbGF2IE1hbHlzaGV2IChQSFAga2V5KSA8c21hbHlzaGV2QGdtYWls
 LmNvbT6IegQTEQgAIgUCT2aqtAIbAwYLCQgHAwIGFQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQL3lW
 vF2gS12XMwD9HuRIolSwIK77u8EY461y2u6sbX36n5/uo/LDQuxoi3sA/0MvpnvzOhv9Iufv
 vsZEj3E7i3h+iD5648YMwfTFCij+uQINBE9mqaAQCADfZPMpjZkkGZj3BY/7ApoLq4mwqzbh
 +CpLXwNn20tFNvSXfb8RdeXvVEb7Scx+W9qYpiaun2iXJgCVH8fgpZpR856ulT1q6uCG++CX
 ubEvip/eJkZl93/84h04KQJwsgOrAh0Om3OePRn8Pr+++0LNS0EL8uX/YHeTOGOnnmTqYTey
 SBVFdov6L4mepddfjekicKQqhL7mZh/xuq29JijT0uNNX8v4vDWQDu5dlAcdd+uB3gcXMD/P
 ginD11zp+6wtrWCm/+yBqpvDwXQX5PGUnwvbRfl7Ay3MmwmoXiecZMg0dwTSc7e0lhB4HGRH
 ZdBMJB4rHUVGdzqujK/ctOvrAAMFB/0Utb76Qe6sCMlHxVAmeE/fbo7Pi05btZ/x01r67dHf
 aMSP0riCKJ7M0OW+jAXtu9+z/BVnYisW67WWfxl2cS5tZDgiHgJARXWUOO72+sScHP8KQmTl
 1z16gyKbwY3SmyBkwcpOL35nhUWNLy93syPoY6sZUTikr2bZYukHDQ33XBPs4e6MbWKfsa9q
 aVmnlOF3k5UqChjutfHaEa4Q7VP4wBIpphHBi9MI16oJIzzBPbGl2uoedjwiZ6QeQZnSuOVY
 ZxU2d3lRA8PrtfFN1VSlpEm/VcAvtieHUYWHN0wOu+cp3Slr5XJVNjTjJhl28SlinMME54mK
 AGf2Ldr/dRwXiGEEGBEIAAkFAk9mqaACGwwACgkQL3lWvF2gS126EQD/VVd3FgjLKglClRQP
 zdfU847tqDK4zJjbmRv5vLLwoE0A+wbrQs7jVGU3NrS0AIl5vUmewpp2BKzSkepy23nWmejw
Message-ID: <03bfc950-33db-2207-d8c5-6fc167f13da5@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:33:11 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuTp-TMmLJ-kor+YdMk6ZqPGFMrXqB_-GsZiEJxJoFc72Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Namespace-scoped declares, again
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> I strongly doubt that there is anything that people could say that
> would alleviate your concern.

There's a lot of things people could say - for example, a proposal that
does not have the same flaws. If you are fixed on having this proposal
unmodified, then yes, my concerns are not addressed, but I am surprised
that this is somehow presented as my fault, as if I am being
unreasonable voicing my concern about a proposal because these concerns
can not be dismissed with mere rhetoric. I would expect that if that is
the case, the proposal would have to be improved - but seems like
somehow the conclusion being made is that I am unreasonable and the
proposal is just fine.

> I could say how nicely my IDE gives me a warning when I edit files
> from a library that don't belong to the project.

Not sure how this relates to anything, sorry.

> I could point to how the Javascript community are deliberately going
> out of their way to make it easier to 'fracture' the language, by
> using pre-compilers, and they have used that to drive evolution in the
> JS ecosystem.*

As I pointed out in my other emails, I don't remember any Javascript
change that makes the engine reject code written for any of the past 20+
years of Javascript existence. So I am not sure how you see it as a
point in your favor. You're not arguing for making pre-compiler for PHP
(if you want to make one, I am the last person to argue against - full
steam ahead!), you are arguing for making deep changes to the fabric of
PHP itself. This is way different.

> But from previous RFC discussions, you only want to discuss possible
> concerns; not in an attempt to try to make the RFC better, or to come
> up with a better idea, but to just put pressure onto the RFC author to
> withdraw the RFC.

That *is* trying to make RFC better - by evaluating concerns and trying
to resolve them - or concluding they can not be resolved. I am not
pressuring anybody into anything, that is plain false. I am stating
where the proposal is lacking. Of course there are many areas where it
is not - it would be stupid to write a long email outlining where I
agree with RFC author, what use would that be?

You seem to be under the impression that if I see a fault in the
proposal, it is on me to produce a perfect proposal to does exactly the
same (even if I am not yet convinced it should be done at all), and RFC
author owes no effort to anyone to try and address the concerns - either
I or anybody who raises the concerns do it for him and fix his RFC, or
we are unreasonable negative jerks that just want to shut down
everything, and should keep quiet about any problems we see until we
find a solution that does the same but perfectly.

I don't think this is how RFC process should work. I think raising
concerns and expecting the proposal author to address them is absolutely
normal - moreover, vital - part of the process. If the author needs any
help in that, they should ask for it - if it's possible (in some cases
the result could be "this proposal doesn't work" and this is normal too,
I proposed tons of things that didn't work out).

> The suggestion that RFC authors need to win you over in a discussion,
> otherwise they aren't doing their job properly appears to be another
> level of trying to shout down RFCs by making life less pleasant for
> those RFC authors.

Not me personally, of course, but most of the people with serious
technical concerns, yes. That I think is what RFC is about. Did you
expect the process to be "Somebody writes RFC, everybody shower them in
praise and adoration, no concerns are raised, the code is committed and
everybody goes to party happily"? That can happen, but with complex
things like completely overhauling 20+-year-old language on a syntax
level, it is unrealistic to expect that. For some RFCs, the decision is
clear and unanimous, I personally votes "yes" on countless number of
them, but sometimes it is more complex than that. If that makes author's
life intolerably unpleasant, I am sorry to hear that but this is not the
reason to give up on proper process because somebody feels they don't
have it in them to support their point of view.

> While it's admirable that you are strong in your beliefs, it is
> incredibly tiring engaging in RFC discussions with you, when so often
> don't it seems to be a waste of time, due to there being nothing that
> could be said that would change your mind.

This is obviously false, I've changed my mind many times. You just try
to paint me as unreasonable jerk to save time on generating actual
argument in defense of your position on technical merits - while I do
spend this time and lay out technical arguments. Prudent strategy for
you personally, but disastrous to the quality of the community
discussion. Please let's move discussion for my personal faults as a
human being to technical matters on PHP.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com